King Richard III burial row heads to High Court

FYI, bit of news

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814

I see the article contains the following:

"One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal action.
"It was his wish," she said.
"It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his remains to be buried in York, amongst his family.
"There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
"So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents' keep mentioning.



________________________________



 
FYI, bit of news

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814

So would I. Anne predeceased her husband by five months and was buried in his lifetime, during his reign and presumably where he wished her to be buried. This idea probably comes from a novel but several people falsely remember it as a convenient fact.
----- Original Message -----
From: Pamela Furmidge
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court



I see the article contains the following:

"One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal action.
"It was his wish," she said.
"It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his remains to be buried in York, amongst his family.
"There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
"So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents' keep mentioning.

________________________________



FYI, bit of news

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814

From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
to High Court


> So would I. Anne predeceased her husband by five months and was buried in
> his lifetime, during his reign and presumably where he wished her to be
> buried.

Good point. Perhaps they are thinking of something he said or did before he
became king?

Personally I don't have a problem with Leicester provided they do a good
job, although I didn't like the attitude of the mayor as quoted here, which
is born out by the fact that of the four Leicester worthies I received
replies from, his was the most cursory. Perhaps he's a republican and hates
the monarchy - in which case somebody ought to point out to him that Richard
was as close to being a socialist as it's possible to be whilst still being
a Mediaeval king.

It's occurred to me that perhaps part of the cathedral's problem is that
they feel that if they have a table tomb they're going to be pressured to
use the Society's own design - which is rather insipid imo, it just looks
like a bog-standard modern gravestone stuck on top of a
mass-produced-looking plinth, and all that imo rather tacky-looking gilding
is going to wear off after a few centuries. Richard should have a tomb
which will carry his name forwards for thousands of years, like the kings of
the ancient world, and the cathedral claims to be looking for a striking,
elegant design designed and made by the best craftsmen, and if so the
Scoiety's design ain't it.

Hi, Pamela 



This is a real bugaboo of mine. I don't think York's cause is helped by mis-stating the evidence. JAH is quite clear that Richard never expressed any desire about where he wanted to be buried. He did plan to found a chantry with 100 priests at York Minster, but that doesn't necessarily mean Richard wanted to be buried there. As has been said elsewhere, it is possible that he wanted to be buried at York when he was Duke of Gloucester, but as King his ideas probably would have changed. Anne, of course, is buried at Westminster Abbey. Edward IV is buried at St. George's Chapel Windsor, and it is very possible that this is what Richard would have had in mind. Another option would have been at Fotheringhay, where his parents are buried. I am sure that they are right when they say that Richard never would have chosen to be buried at Leicester  but as I've said many times before, I personally don't object to him being reinterred in Leicester Cathedral, as long as he is accorded a proper table-top tomb, and I'm sure that there is a way that that can be arranged without distracting unduly or intruding too much in the main aisle (like, put Richard's tomb in one of the aisles or a chapel, off to the side).



BTW, JAH also mentioned another place in Leicester that would be able to provide a suitable burial  it's a Dominican, Roman Catholic Church in Leicester, I believe, which he indicated would be happy to see Richard interred in a table-top tomb. Since Richard was interred in the Grey Friars Church, and the Grey Friars have always had close relations with the Black Friars.



Those are some of my thoughts on the matter, anyway.



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 Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:29 AM
To:
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court





I see the article contains the following:

"One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal action.
"It was his wish," she said.
"It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his remains to be buried in York, amongst his family.
"There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
"So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents' keep mentioning.

________________________________



FYI, bit of news

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814

I couldn't agree more, Johanne, regarding these spurious claims about Richard's intentions.  As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no documentation at all regarding his desire to be buried anywhere. He endowed chantry chapels in a number of places and unless he intended his, and his family's remains, be split up like saints' relics, it is obvious he wasn't setting up places for his burial.

It is possible that Edward IV intended St George's Windsor to be the final resting place of the Yorkist Kings, but again, as far as I know, there is no documentation existing to confirm this.


________________________________
 Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote




 
Hi, Pamela 

This is a real bugaboo of mine. I don't think York's cause is helped by mis-stating the evidence. JAH is quite clear that Richard never expressed any desire about where he wanted to be buried. He did plan to found a chantry with 100 priests at York Minster, but that doesn't necessarily mean Richard wanted to be buried there. As has been said elsewhere, it is possible that he wanted to be buried at York when he was Duke of Gloucester, but as King his ideas probably would have changed. Anne, of course, is buried at Westminster Abbey. Edward IV is buried at St. George's Chapel Windsor, and it is very possible that this is what Richard would have had in mind. Another option would have been at Fotheringhay, where his parents are buried. I am sure that they are right when they say that Richard never would have chosen to be buried at Leicester  but as I've said many times before, I personally don't object to him being reinterred in Leicester
Cathedral, as long as he is accorded a proper table-top tomb, and I'm sure that there is a way that that can be arranged without distracting unduly or intruding too much in the main aisle (like, put Richard's tomb in one of the aisles or a chapel, off to the side).

BTW, JAH also mentioned another place in Leicester that would be able to provide a suitable burial  it's a Dominican, Roman Catholic Church in Leicester, I believe, which he indicated would be happy to see Richard interred in a table-top tomb. Since Richard was interred in the Grey Friars Church, and the Grey Friars have always had close relations with the Black Friars.

Those are some of my thoughts on the matter, anyway.

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 Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:29 AM
To:
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court

I see the article contains the following:

"One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal action.
"It was his wish," she said.
"It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his remains to be buried in York, amongst his family.
"There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
"So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents' keep mentioning.

________________________________

FYI, bit of news

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814

Even kings don't always, at 32, think they might die. I think he expected to win his last battle, and had he lived he would probably have made his wishes clear. There is just so much we do not know. I am not joining the fray, but I did do questions the "family" *knowing* he wanted to be buried in York.

On May 2, 2013, at 5:25 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...<mailto:pamela.furmidge@...>> wrote:



I couldn't agree more, Johanne, regarding these spurious claims about Richard's intentions. As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no documentation at all regarding his desire to be buried anywhere. He endowed chantry chapels in a number of places and unless he intended his, and his family's remains, be split up like saints' relics, it is obvious he wasn't setting up places for his burial.

It is possible that Edward IV intended St George's Windsor to be the final resting place of the Yorkist Kings, but again, as far as I know, there is no documentation existing to confirm this.

________________________________
Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>> wrote


Hi, Pamela ý

This is a real bugaboo of mine. I donýt think Yorkýs cause is helped by mis-stating the evidence. JAH is quite clear that Richard never expressed any desire about where he wanted to be buried. He did plan to found a chantry with 100 priests at York Minster, but that doesnýt necessarily mean Richard wanted to be buried there. As has been said elsewhere, it is possible that he wanted to be buried at York when he was Duke of Gloucester, but as King his ideas probably would have changed. Anne, of course, is buried at Westminster Abbey. Edward IV is buried at St. Georgeýs Chapel Windsor, and it is very possible that this is what Richard would have had in mind. Another option would have been at Fotheringhay, where his parents are buried. I am sure that they are right when they say that Richard never would have chosen to be buried at Leicester ý but as Iýve said many times before, I personally donýt object to him being reinterred in Leicester
Cathedral, as long as he is accorded a proper table-top tomb, and Iým sure that there is a way that that can be arranged without distracting unduly or intruding too much in the main aisle (like, put Richardýs tomb in one of the aisles or a chapel, off to the side).

BTW, JAH also mentioned another place in Leicester that would be able to provide a suitable burial ý itýs a Dominican, Roman Catholic Church in Leicester, I believe, which he indicated would be happy to see Richard interred in a table-top tomb. Since Richard was interred in the Grey Friars Church, and the Grey Friars have always had close relations with the Black Friars.

Those are some of my thoughts on the matter, anyway.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:29 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court

I see the article contains the following:

"One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal action.
"It was his wish," she said.
"It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his remains to be buried in York, amongst his family.
"There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
"So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents' keep mentioning.

________________________________

FYI, bit of news

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814

Hi, Pamela -
Admittedly, I am sticking my oar in where I have no business, which I admit.
However, I guess I have a right to a point of view . . . and it is this, in
brief.

I first became aware of all the recent developments as a result of the press
conference they held on Sept. 12 last year. Since then I have followed all
developments with rapt interest. What I saw at the time was a partnership
between the RIII Society (especially "Society ramrod" Philippa Langley :-) )
and the various Leicester-based groups (especially the University, the
archeological team, and the town) to fund and spur the search for Richard.
York was nowhere in evidence, nor to the best of my knowledge, have any of
those "collateral descendants," been in evidence for the last 500+ years.

During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond
regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for
showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III
School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded
by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).
Not a peep from anyone at York.

Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own
initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, when Richard made the appeal for troops
to help defend his Crown before Bosworth, the town fathers (like town
fathers everywhere) dillied and dallied and never did send any troops. I
suppose one might argue that, like a lot of other "what ifs" about Bosworth,
if the town had gotten troops to Richard it might have made the difference.

Lastly, my understanding is that York has a lot of other irons in the fire.
They do the "Viking thing" every year. The substantial York Minster charges
an equally-substantial entry fee for admission. In my view, they don't
"need" Richard as much as Leicester does - and consequently, Richard may end
up being given short shrift. I don't think that there is any guarantee, if
York were granted the right of interment, as to the style of the memorial
that they would propose. It's pretty much a "pig in a poke," you might say.
A number of people have posted of visits they have made to Leicester in the
past 8 months or so, and they have concluded that it will be a wonderful
spot for pilgrimage and contemplation of Richard's life. (I suppose the
Cathedral may end up upping their entry fees, too. Oh, well, some things are
beyond our control.)

There's my four farthings! :-)

Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:57 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
to High Court

Even kings don't always, at 32, think they might die. I think he expected to
win his last battle, and had he lived he would probably have made his wishes
clear. There is just so much we do not know. I am not joining the fray, but
I did do questions the "family" *knowing* he wanted to be buried in York.

>>>Even kings don't always, at 32, think they might die. I think he expected
>>>to win his last battle, and had he lived he would probably have made his
>>>wishes clear. There is just so much we do not know. I am not joining the
>>>fray, but I did do questions the "family" *knowing* he wanted to be
>>>buried in York.<<<

I agree, and can't help feeling that if Richard had wanted Anne to be buried
at Westminster, he intended to eventually lie beside her there. So unless he
meant to have her reinterred somewhere else, in a specially built
chapel/church/whatever intended for them both, I really do think he had
Westminster in mind. But that said, I don't then understand why his son was
not brought to Westminster as well. Why leave Anne in the south and their
child in the north? Has anyone ever been removed from Westminster to be
reinterred elsewhere? Can't recall an example off hand. But the more I think
of it, the more I wonder if Richard really did eventually mean to have
somewhere else prepared, where they could all be interred together. Seems
logical to me. Hadn't he moved burials around before, to what he considered
more fitting, respectful places? So why not those of the people most dear to
him? And at only 32, as has been said, he imagined he had plenty of time in
which to do it. The thing is, a theory is all very well, but it still
doesn't explain WHERE he might have had in mind. So I'm back to square one.

Sandra

Sandra said:
Has anyone ever been removed from Westminster to be
reinterred elsewhere?


Liz:  didn't The Tydder move Anne Mowbray from there to the Minories and then she was moved back in the 1960s after her Minories grave was rediscovered?

I don;t think any of the Kings or Queens has been shifted though but of course could be wrong.

I totally agree Johanne.  I don't mind so much "where" he is as long as it's fitting.  I prefer the idea of Leicester because it will be "his" not shared with lots of other people and frankly i think he deserves that.
 
As for Vanessa Roe, " his family was going to be buried in York itself" she doesn't know what she's talking about unless of course teh "descendants" have lots of original documents no one knows about.
 
Liz
 

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013, 12:34
Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court

 
Hi, Pamela -
Admittedly, I am sticking my oar in where I have no business, which I admit.
However, I guess I have a right to a point of view . . . and it is this, in
brief.

I first became aware of all the recent developments as a result of the press
conference they held on Sept. 12 last year. Since then I have followed all
developments with rapt interest. What I saw at the time was a partnership
between the RIII Society (especially "Society ramrod" Philippa Langley :-) )
and the various Leicester-based groups (especially the University, the
archeological team, and the town) to fund and spur the search for Richard.
York was nowhere in evidence, nor to the best of my knowledge, have any of
those "collateral descendants," been in evidence for the last 500+ years.

During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond
regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for
showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III
School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded
by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).
Not a peep from anyone at York.

Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own
initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, when Richard made the appeal for troops
to help defend his Crown before Bosworth, the town fathers (like town
fathers everywhere) dillied and dallied and never did send any troops. I
suppose one might argue that, like a lot of other "what ifs" about Bosworth,
if the town had gotten troops to Richard it might have made the difference.

Lastly, my understanding is that York has a lot of other irons in the fire.
They do the "Viking thing" every year. The substantial York Minster charges
an equally-substantial entry fee for admission. In my view, they don't
"need" Richard as much as Leicester does - and consequently, Richard may end
up being given short shrift. I don't think that there is any guarantee, if
York were granted the right of interment, as to the style of the memorial
that they would propose. It's pretty much a "pig in a poke," you might say.
A number of people have posted of visits they have made to Leicester in the
past 8 months or so, and they have concluded that it will be a wonderful
spot for pilgrimage and contemplation of Richard's life. (I suppose the
Cathedral may end up upping their entry fees, too. Oh, well, some things are
beyond our control.)

There's my four farthings! :-)

Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com
or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
[mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:57 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
to High Court

Even kings don't always, at 32, think they might die. I think he expected to
win his last battle, and had he lived he would probably have made his wishes
clear. There is just so much we do not know. I am not joining the fray, but
I did do questions the "family" *knowing* he wanted to be buried in York.

Presumably she was one of Richard's 'family' who have been fighting for years to find his body in order to give it an honourable burial.  No doubt she was one of those going the rounds persuading all the relevant authorities to excavate Leicester in order to find him.  (ooops, no, that was Philippa.....)  

It must have been playing on their minds for years, worrying about their long-lost relative and how they could find him.  Still, I don't recall hearing from any of them before Richard was actually found........


________________________________

 liz williams  wrote

 
As for Vanessa Roe, " his family was going to be buried in York itself" she doesn't know what she's talking about unless of course teh "descendants" have lots of original documents no one knows about.
 
Liz
 

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013, 12:34
Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court

 
Hi, Pamela -
Admittedly, I am sticking my oar in where I have no business, which I admit.
However, I guess I have a right to a point of view . . . and it is this, in
brief.

I first became aware of all the recent developments as a result of the press
conference they held on Sept. 12 last year. Since then I have followed all
developments with rapt interest. What I saw at the time was a partnership
between the RIII Society (especially "Society ramrod" Philippa Langley :-) )
and the various Leicester-based groups (especially the University, the
archeological team, and the town) to fund and spur the search for Richard.
York was nowhere in evidence, nor to the best of my knowledge, have any of
those "collateral descendants," been in evidence for the last 500+ years.

During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond
regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for
showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III
School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded
by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).
Not a peep from anyone at York.

Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own
initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, when Richard made the appeal for troops
to help defend his Crown before Bosworth, the town fathers (like town
fathers everywhere) dillied and dallied and never did send any troops. I
suppose one might argue that, like a lot of other "what ifs" about Bosworth,
if the town had gotten troops to Richard it might have made the difference.

Lastly, my understanding is that York has a lot of other irons in the fire.
They do the "Viking thing" every year. The substantial York Minster charges
an equally-substantial entry fee for admission. In my view, they don't
"need" Richard as much as Leicester does - and consequently, Richard may end
up being given short shrift. I don't think that there is any guarantee, if
York were granted the right of interment, as to the style of the memorial
that they would propose. It's pretty much a "pig in a poke," you might say.
A number of people have posted of visits they have made to Leicester in the
past 8 months or so, and they have concluded that it will be a wonderful
spot for pilgrimage and contemplation of Richard's life. (I suppose the
Cathedral may end up upping their entry fees, too. Oh, well, some things are
beyond our control.)

There's my four farthings! :-)

Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com
or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
[mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:57 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
to High Court

Even kings don't always, at 32, think they might die. I think he expected to
win his last battle, and had he lived he would probably have made his wishes
clear. There is just so much we do not know. I am not joining the fray, but
I did do questions the "family" *knowing* he wanted to be buried in York.

Pamela Furmidge wrote:


"I see the article contains the following:
"One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal
action.
"It was his wish," she said.
"It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his remains
to be buried in York, amongst his family.
"There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains
there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than
Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
"So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents' keep
mentioning."

Doug here:
What those "descendents" apparently don't know is that *all* the known
evidence supports the idea that Richard was "assigned" to York by his
brother for *political* reasons and not that Richard *chose* to reside in
York on his own whim. Had Richard spent a decade or more as Edward's
representative in, say, Ireland, would these same "descendents" be lobbying
for Dublin?
I'm not in any way trying to argue that Richard didn't like York, but rather
that any feelings he had for it, and its' inhabitants, were more likely the
feelings that *anyone* wculd very well develop for *anyplace* where they,
for whatever reason, were forced to live.
Doug
(Who was fortunate enough during his military career to be assigned to
places that were very easy to like!)

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I totally agree Johanne. I don't mind so much "where" he is as long as it's fitting


If the lawsuit pressures Leicester Cathedral and others in Leicester to give Richard III a more fitting burial in a table tomb instead of a floor slab, then it more than serves its purpose. So I wouldn't go publicly challenge the details.

From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:34 PM
Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads
to High Court


> Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own
initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.

He has a memorial in memory: in the 1940s/50s my mother had a boyfriend from
Yorkshire who still used "As welcome as Good King Dick" as a proverbial term
for a very welcome thing. But he was from an area a few miles north-west of
Bradford - I dunno if this was also current in York.

> Also, to the best of my knowledge, when Richard made the appeal for troops
to help defend his Crown before Bosworth, the town fathers (like town
fathers everywhere) dillied and dallied and never did send any troops.

I thought the point was that they *did* send the troops, but the distance
was so great that they were still on the road on 22nd August and never got
there?

> Lastly, my understanding is that York has a lot of other irons in the
> fire.
They do the "Viking thing" every year. The substantial York Minster charges
an equally-substantial entry fee for admission. In my view, they don't
"need" Richard as much as Leicester does

Which is a factor which would probably be important to Richard himself - he
would probably like still to be a means of improving the welfare of some of
his poorer subjects. He seems to have regarded the north as home and I'm
sure York would have been pleasing to him - but I don't think he would have
been exactly horrified at the idea of being buried in Leicester. There are
arguments for both.

Leicester is almost dead-centre of England, so it's an impressive spot to
bury a particularly English king. It means staying near the bodies of his
men, which would probably please him, and as for being near the site of his
death, it was a glorious soldier's death which even his enemies admired and
he famously died crowned, so burying him in a place which reminds people of
how he died is likely to add to, not detract from his honour.

Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> [snip] During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).
> Not a peep from anyone at York.
>
> Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
> commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.
>
> Also, to the best of my knowledge, when Richard made the appeal for troops to help defend his Crown before Bosworth, the town fathers (like town fathers everywhere) dillied and dallied and never did send any troops. [snip]

Carol responds:

I agree with most of your post though I would mention the moving tribute to Richard in the York Civic Records when they received the terrible news that "King Richard, late mercifully reigning upon us" had been "piteously slain and murdered" in battle, a very fitting tribute despite York's confusion regarding the identity of the traitors (quoted from memory in modern English so it may not be exact). If I recall correctly, York, which had been ravaged by plague, sent about eighty men. Two, John Sponer or Spooner, Sergeant of the Mace (whatever that is) and John Nicholson, a messenger, rode ahead to meet with Richard at Nottingham. According to Kendall, the city had received word that the enemy had landed but no instructions from Northumberland, who was in charge of recruiting in the North. Not knowing what to do, they sent Sponer and Northumberland to Richard in Beskwood Lodge to "understand {Richard's pleasure in sending up any of his subjects within this city to his said grace for the subduing of his enemies late arrived in . . . Wales." Meanwhile, the council sent to any aldermen not ill with the plague for their advice and ordered all men in the city to "be ready in their most defensible array to attend upon the mayor" while they waited for word from Richard.

John Sponer chose to remain and fight for Richard (he later delivered the bad news to York); Nicholson returned with the message that Richard needed their help. York immediately sent "four score men . . . defensibly arrayed . . . should in all haste possible" go to the aid of the king.

We can only assume that had it not been for the plague and for Northumberland's not sending instructions to York that they would have sent a much larger contingent much earlier. As it was, they arrived too late to participate in the battle because, for whatever reason, Richard chose not to wait.

I wouldn't blame York in Richard's day. The city was definitely loyal to and grateful to Richard. Even Francis Bacon, and admirer of Henry Tudor, wrote that in his day the memory of Richard III still "lay like lees in the bottom of men's hearts, and if the vessel was but stirred, it would come up."

But it's certainly true that the "descendants" are stating Richard's supposed wishes on insufficient evidence. It seems that, whatever plans he had for his interrment as Duke of Gloucester changed when he became king. Most likely, he would have preferred to be buried either beside Anne at Westminster or beside Edward at Windsor. (He may have set aside a spot there near the one he chose for Henry VI. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read that except that it was online.)

Carol

The legal challenge is primarily on the lack of consultation.

A small number of individuals from Leicester and from the Society took it upon themselves to locally decide, even before remains were found, even before they were confirmed as Richard, to choose where to re-inter them. This decision and process should not have even begun *until* the remains were confirmed as Richard in February. The process in no way conforms with good practice, and interring known individuals in the nearest burial ground without consultation is *not* good practice.

In the years during which PL and JAH were conducting the negotiations for the dig (and reinterment in Leicester), the RIII Society produced several articles speaking strongly and academically of Richard's connection with York. For the duration of my membership of the Society - several decades - I have been under the strong impression that Richard's most important connections and affiliations were in the north and with York in particular. That this now seems to be completely sidelined in favour of the place where he died - not where he lived and spent his life - is astonishing to me.

Is there direct documentation that says Richard wished to be buried in York? - no, there is not. But he was founded the chantry there to an immense cost, and did this whilst he was King, not whilst he was Duke of Gloucester: he was prepared to spend the equivalent of well over £1 million to create this. This is more than suggestive that he intended it to be his mausoleum. He buried his son in the north - another possible indication. It is true we cannot know whether York was definitely his planned place - whether Anne might have been moved from Westminster, or whether in the light of a possible new marriage, he might have been buried in York alongside Joanna of Portugal... but we can assess the possible likelihood of being a very strong, if not the strongest, contender for a location. He would not have chosen to be buried in Leicester.

Richard himself reinterred people in places appropriate to them; John Howard was taken to a place meaningful to him after Bosworth; there is a possibility that Brackenbury was also buried in his home-church. I know that it is fitting to inter the dead in accordance with their possible wishes - and that Leicester in all likelihood would not have been his wish; and that York may well have been his wish. Dr Lin Foxhall stated in late Oct last year that people were "jumping the gun" discussing reinterment locations until the announcement about the remains was made (that no possible discussion at all was on the cards, was not evident at that point). Whenever there is an open poll (nationally) on the location, the result speaks overwhelmingly in favour of York.

Prof Eamon Duffy of Cambridge, an expert on medieval catholicism, has stated that ideally Richard should be buried in a medieval cathedral with a "significant association with his history,". At least four other professors in Medieval History with a special interest and expertise in Richard's life, have stated that they believe Richard might have been intending York as his mausoleum and it would be appropriate for him to be buried there.

Richard had to work in the north, yes, but he seems to have been intensely involved in the life of York, and in the Minster and its clerics. He was there at the dedication in 1472; he and Anne were made members of the Corpus Christi Guild there; he invested his son there; he spent serious amounts of time there on various issues; he gave monies for the walls there; he spent the longest time on his royal progress there. And importantly he called travelling to York a "home-coming".

Leicester concerns his death and post-mortem ill-treatment and burial; York is about the man's life. Richard's critical associations are those exhibited in his life, not in the location of his defeat and horrendous burial: that is what should be respected in the choice of location.

It seems - remarkably - I am in the minority here, but there are many people (including the Chair and at least one other key member of the Advisory Panel for Burials in England) who feel that the whole process of deciding a location a) was done without public accountability or wider consultation and b) should not have begun until Feb 4th at the earliest. This is in part why the legal challenge was needed, sadly. This is not about any city's "rights to Richard" or their financial needs or how many pubs/roads they have named after Richard: it is about consultation and primarily about where this king's connections are meaningful - not to the townspeople, and not to his death, but to him and his life and his known affiliations.

Col

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Pamela â€"
>
>
>
> This is a real bugaboo of mine. I don’t think York’s cause is helped by mis-stating the evidence. JAH is quite clear that Richard never expressed any desire about where he wanted to be buried. He did plan to found a chantry with 100 priests at York Minster, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Richard wanted to be buried there. As has been said elsewhere, it is possible that he wanted to be buried at York when he was Duke of Gloucester, but as King his ideas probably would have changed. Anne, of course, is buried at Westminster Abbey. Edward IV is buried at St. George’s Chapel Windsor, and it is very possible that this is what Richard would have had in mind. Another option would have been at Fotheringhay, where his parents are buried. I am sure that they are right when they say that Richard never would have chosen to be buried at Leicester â€" but as I’ve said many times before, I personally don’t object to him being reinterred in Leicester Cathedral, as long as he is accorded a proper table-top tomb, and I’m sure that there is a way that that can be arranged without distracting unduly or intruding too much in the main aisle (like, put Richard’s tomb in one of the aisles or a chapel, off to the side).
>
>
>
> BTW, JAH also mentioned another place in Leicester that would be able to provide a suitable burial â€" it’s a Dominican, Roman Catholic Church in Leicester, I believe, which he indicated would be happy to see Richard interred in a table-top tomb. Since Richard was interred in the Grey Friars Church, and the Grey Friars have always had close relations with the Black Friars.
>
>
>
> Those are some of my thoughts on the matter, anyway.
>
>
>
> 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 Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:29 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
>
>
>
>
>
> I see the article contains the following:
>
> "One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal action.
> "It was his wish," she said.
> "It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his remains to be buried in York, amongst his family.
> "There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
> "So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
> I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents' keep mentioning.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> FYI, bit of news
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hello colynbourne, You are not in the minority I can assure you, there are many people I know who will appreciate the information you have posted. It is my belief that as with Richard and Edward's father and brother who were moved from Pontefract to Fotheringhay, Anne may well have been moved to York and little Edward to join her and Richard when his time came. People keep going on about Richard not making a will to say where he wished to be buried but lets face it Tudor would have destroyed it. Also Tudor would never have let Richard be buried in York it would probably become something of a shrine.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> The legal challenge is primarily on the lack of consultation.
>
> A small number of individuals from Leicester and from the Society took it upon themselves to locally decide, even before remains were found, even before they were confirmed as Richard, to choose where to re-inter them. This decision and process should not have even begun *until* the remains were confirmed as Richard in February. The process in no way conforms with good practice, and interring known individuals in the nearest burial ground without consultation is *not* good practice.
>
> In the years during which PL and JAH were conducting the negotiations for the dig (and reinterment in Leicester), the RIII Society produced several articles speaking strongly and academically of Richard's connection with York. For the duration of my membership of the Society - several decades - I have been under the strong impression that Richard's most important connections and affiliations were in the north and with York in particular. That this now seems to be completely sidelined in favour of the place where he died - not where he lived and spent his life - is astonishing to me.
>
> Is there direct documentation that says Richard wished to be buried in York? - no, there is not. But he was founded the chantry there to an immense cost, and did this whilst he was King, not whilst he was Duke of Gloucester: he was prepared to spend the equivalent of well over £1 million to create this. This is more than suggestive that he intended it to be his mausoleum. He buried his son in the north - another possible indication. It is true we cannot know whether York was definitely his planned place - whether Anne might have been moved from Westminster, or whether in the light of a possible new marriage, he might have been buried in York alongside Joanna of Portugal... but we can assess the possible likelihood of being a very strong, if not the strongest, contender for a location. He would not have chosen to be buried in Leicester.
>
> Richard himself reinterred people in places appropriate to them; John Howard was taken to a place meaningful to him after Bosworth; there is a possibility that Brackenbury was also buried in his home-church. I know that it is fitting to inter the dead in accordance with their possible wishes - and that Leicester in all likelihood would not have been his wish; and that York may well have been his wish. Dr Lin Foxhall stated in late Oct last year that people were "jumping the gun" discussing reinterment locations until the announcement about the remains was made (that no possible discussion at all was on the cards, was not evident at that point). Whenever there is an open poll (nationally) on the location, the result speaks overwhelmingly in favour of York.
>
> Prof Eamon Duffy of Cambridge, an expert on medieval catholicism, has stated that ideally Richard should be buried in a medieval cathedral with a "significant association with his history,". At least four other professors in Medieval History with a special interest and expertise in Richard's life, have stated that they believe Richard might have been intending York as his mausoleum and it would be appropriate for him to be buried there.
>
> Richard had to work in the north, yes, but he seems to have been intensely involved in the life of York, and in the Minster and its clerics. He was there at the dedication in 1472; he and Anne were made members of the Corpus Christi Guild there; he invested his son there; he spent serious amounts of time there on various issues; he gave monies for the walls there; he spent the longest time on his royal progress there. And importantly he called travelling to York a "home-coming".
>
> Leicester concerns his death and post-mortem ill-treatment and burial; York is about the man's life. Richard's critical associations are those exhibited in his life, not in the location of his defeat and horrendous burial: that is what should be respected in the choice of location.
>
> It seems - remarkably - I am in the minority here, but there are many people (including the Chair and at least one other key member of the Advisory Panel for Burials in England) who feel that the whole process of deciding a location a) was done without public accountability or wider consultation and b) should not have begun until Feb 4th at the earliest. This is in part why the legal challenge was needed, sadly. This is not about any city's "rights to Richard" or their financial needs or how many pubs/roads they have named after Richard: it is about consultation and primarily about where this king's connections are meaningful - not to the townspeople, and not to his death, but to him and his life and his known affiliations.
>
> Col
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Pamela â€"
> >
> >
> >
> > This is a real bugaboo of mine. I don’t think York’s cause is helped by mis-stating the evidence. JAH is quite clear that Richard never expressed any desire about where he wanted to be buried. He did plan to found a chantry with 100 priests at York Minster, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Richard wanted to be buried there. As has been said elsewhere, it is possible that he wanted to be buried at York when he was Duke of Gloucester, but as King his ideas probably would have changed. Anne, of course, is buried at Westminster Abbey. Edward IV is buried at St. George’s Chapel Windsor, and it is very possible that this is what Richard would have had in mind. Another option would have been at Fotheringhay, where his parents are buried. I am sure that they are right when they say that Richard never would have chosen to be buried at Leicester â€" but as I’ve said many times before, I personally don’t object to him being reinterred in Leicester Cathedral, as long as he is accorded a proper table-top tomb, and I’m sure that there is a way that that can be arranged without distracting unduly or intruding too much in the main aisle (like, put Richard’s tomb in one of the aisles or a chapel, off to the side).
> >
> >
> >
> > BTW, JAH also mentioned another place in Leicester that would be able to provide a suitable burial â€" it’s a Dominican, Roman Catholic Church in Leicester, I believe, which he indicated would be happy to see Richard interred in a table-top tomb. Since Richard was interred in the Grey Friars Church, and the Grey Friars have always had close relations with the Black Friars.
> >
> >
> >
> > Those are some of my thoughts on the matter, anyway.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 Pamela Furmidge
> > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:29 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I see the article contains the following:
> >
> > "One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal action.
> > "It was his wish," she said.
> > "It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his remains to be buried in York, amongst his family.
> > "There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
> > "So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
> > I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents' keep mentioning.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > FYI, bit of news
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I would support Col on this. To me it's not about where (although I do favour York) but that the process itself was fundamentally flawed, as indeed it would seem that the ownership of the dig was also.



________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013, 17:38
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court

 

The legal challenge is primarily on the lack of consultation.

A small number of individuals from Leicester and from the Society took it upon themselves to locally decide, even before remains were found, even before they were confirmed as Richard, to choose where to re-inter them. This decision and process should not have even begun *until* the remains were confirmed as Richard in February. The process in no way conforms with good practice, and interring known individuals in the nearest burial ground without consultation is *not* good practice.

In the years during which PL and JAH were conducting the negotiations for the dig (and reinterment in Leicester), the RIII Society produced several articles speaking strongly and academically of Richard's connection with York. For the duration of my membership of the Society - several decades - I have been under the strong impression that Richard's most important connections and affiliations were in the north and with York in particular. That this now seems to be completely sidelined in favour of the place where he died - not where he lived and spent his life - is astonishing to me.

Is there direct documentation that says Richard wished to be buried in York? - no, there is not. But he was founded the chantry there to an immense cost, and did this whilst he was King, not whilst he was Duke of Gloucester: he was prepared to spend the equivalent of well over £1 million to create this. This is more than suggestive that he intended it to be his mausoleum. He buried his son in the north - another possible indication. It is true we cannot know whether York was definitely his planned place - whether Anne might have been moved from Westminster, or whether in the light of a possible new marriage, he might have been buried in York alongside Joanna of Portugal... but we can assess the possible likelihood of being a very strong, if not the strongest, contender for a location. He would not have chosen to be buried in Leicester.

Richard himself reinterred people in places appropriate to them; John Howard was taken to a place meaningful to him after Bosworth; there is a possibility that Brackenbury was also buried in his home-church. I know that it is fitting to inter the dead in accordance with their possible wishes - and that Leicester in all likelihood would not have been his wish; and that York may well have been his wish. Dr Lin Foxhall stated in late Oct last year that people were "jumping the gun" discussing reinterment locations until the announcement about the remains was made (that no possible discussion at all was on the cards, was not evident at that point). Whenever there is an open poll (nationally) on the location, the result speaks overwhelmingly in favour of York.

Prof Eamon Duffy of Cambridge, an expert on medieval catholicism, has stated that ideally Richard should be buried in a medieval cathedral with a "significant association with his history,". At least four other professors in Medieval History with a special interest and expertise in Richard's life, have stated that they believe Richard might have been intending York as his mausoleum and it would be appropriate for him to be buried there.

Richard had to work in the north, yes, but he seems to have been intensely involved in the life of York, and in the Minster and its clerics. He was there at the dedication in 1472; he and Anne were made members of the Corpus Christi Guild there; he invested his son there; he spent serious amounts of time there on various issues; he gave monies for the walls there; he spent the longest time on his royal progress there. And importantly he called travelling to York a "home-coming".

Leicester concerns his death and post-mortem ill-treatment and burial; York is about the man's life. Richard's critical associations are those exhibited in his life, not in the location of his defeat and horrendous burial: that is what should be respected in the choice of location.

It seems - remarkably - I am in the minority here, but there are many people (including the Chair and at least one other key member of the Advisory Panel for Burials in England) who feel that the whole process of deciding a location a) was done without public accountability or wider consultation and b) should not have begun until Feb 4th at the earliest. This is in part why the legal challenge was needed, sadly. This is not about any city's "rights to Richard" or their financial needs or how many pubs/roads they have named after Richard: it is about consultation and primarily about where this king's connections are meaningful - not to the townspeople, and not to his death, but to him and his life and his known affiliations.

Col

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Pamela â¬"
>
>
>
> This is a real bugaboo of mine. I donâ¬"t think Yorkâ¬"s cause is helped by mis-stating the evidence. JAH is quite clear that Richard never expressed any desire about where he wanted to be buried. He did plan to found a chantry with 100 priests at York Minster, but that doesnâ¬"t necessarily mean Richard wanted to be buried there. As has been said elsewhere, it is possible that he wanted to be buried at York when he was Duke of Gloucester, but as King his ideas probably would have changed. Anne, of course, is buried at Westminster Abbey. Edward IV is buried at St. Georgeâ¬"s Chapel Windsor, and it is very possible that this is what Richard would have had in mind. Another option would have been at Fotheringhay, where his parents are buried. I am sure that they are right when they say that Richard never would have chosen to be buried at Leicester â¬" but as Iâ¬"ve said many times before, I personally donâ¬"t object to him
being reinterred in Leicester Cathedral, as long as he is accorded a proper table-top tomb, and Iâ¬"m sure that there is a way that that can be arranged without distracting unduly or intruding too much in the main aisle (like, put Richardâ¬"s tomb in one of the aisles or a chapel, off to the side).
>
>
>
> BTW, JAH also mentioned another place in Leicester that would be able to provide a suitable burial â¬" itâ¬"s a Dominican, Roman Catholic Church in Leicester, I believe, which he indicated would be happy to see Richard interred in a table-top tomb. Since Richard was interred in the Grey Friars Church, and the Grey Friars have always had close relations with the Black Friars.
>
>
>
> Those are some of my thoughts on the matter, anyway.
>
>
>
> 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 Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:29 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
>
>
>
>
>
> I see the article contains the following:
>
> "One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal action.
> "It was his wish," she said.
> "It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his remains to be buried in York, amongst his family.
> "There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
> "So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
> I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents' keep mentioning.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> FYI, bit of news
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Agreed.

A J


On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I would support Col on this. To me it's not about where (although I do
> favour York) but that the process itself was fundamentally flawed, as
> indeed it would seem that the ownership of the dig was also.
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013, 17:38
>
> Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
> to High Court
>
>
>
> The legal challenge is primarily on the lack of consultation.
>
> A small number of individuals from Leicester and from the Society took it
> upon themselves to locally decide, even before remains were found, even
> before they were confirmed as Richard, to choose where to re-inter them.
> This decision and process should not have even begun *until* the remains
> were confirmed as Richard in February. The process in no way conforms with
> good practice, and interring known individuals in the nearest burial ground
> without consultation is *not* good practice.
>
> In the years during which PL and JAH were conducting the negotiations for
> the dig (and reinterment in Leicester), the RIII Society produced several
> articles speaking strongly and academically of Richard's connection with
> York. For the duration of my membership of the Society - several decades -
> I have been under the strong impression that Richard's most important
> connections and affiliations were in the north and with York in particular.
> That this now seems to be completely sidelined in favour of the place where
> he died - not where he lived and spent his life - is astonishing to me.
>
> Is there direct documentation that says Richard wished to be buried in
> York? - no, there is not. But he was founded the chantry there to an
> immense cost, and did this whilst he was King, not whilst he was Duke of
> Gloucester: he was prepared to spend the equivalent of well over ý1 million
> to create this. This is more than suggestive that he intended it to be his
> mausoleum. He buried his son in the north - another possible indication. It
> is true we cannot know whether York was definitely his planned place -
> whether Anne might have been moved from Westminster, or whether in the
> light of a possible new marriage, he might have been buried in York
> alongside Joanna of Portugal... but we can assess the possible likelihood
> of being a very strong, if not the strongest, contender for a location. He
> would not have chosen to be buried in Leicester.
>
> Richard himself reinterred people in places appropriate to them; John
> Howard was taken to a place meaningful to him after Bosworth; there is a
> possibility that Brackenbury was also buried in his home-church. I know
> that it is fitting to inter the dead in accordance with their possible
> wishes - and that Leicester in all likelihood would not have been his wish;
> and that York may well have been his wish. Dr Lin Foxhall stated in late
> Oct last year that people were "jumping the gun" discussing reinterment
> locations until the announcement about the remains was made (that no
> possible discussion at all was on the cards, was not evident at that
> point). Whenever there is an open poll (nationally) on the location, the
> result speaks overwhelmingly in favour of York.
>
> Prof Eamon Duffy of Cambridge, an expert on medieval catholicism, has
> stated that ideally Richard should be buried in a medieval cathedral with a
> "significant association with his history,". At least four other professors
> in Medieval History with a special interest and expertise in Richard's
> life, have stated that they believe Richard might have been intending York
> as his mausoleum and it would be appropriate for him to be buried there.
>
> Richard had to work in the north, yes, but he seems to have been intensely
> involved in the life of York, and in the Minster and its clerics. He was
> there at the dedication in 1472; he and Anne were made members of the
> Corpus Christi Guild there; he invested his son there; he spent serious
> amounts of time there on various issues; he gave monies for the walls
> there; he spent the longest time on his royal progress there. And
> importantly he called travelling to York a "home-coming".
>
> Leicester concerns his death and post-mortem ill-treatment and burial;
> York is about the man's life. Richard's critical associations are those
> exhibited in his life, not in the location of his defeat and horrendous
> burial: that is what should be respected in the choice of location.
>
> It seems - remarkably - I am in the minority here, but there are many
> people (including the Chair and at least one other key member of the
> Advisory Panel for Burials in England) who feel that the whole process of
> deciding a location a) was done without public accountability or wider
> consultation and b) should not have begun until Feb 4th at the earliest.
> This is in part why the legal challenge was needed, sadly. This is not
> about any city's "rights to Richard" or their financial needs or how many
> pubs/roads they have named after Richard: it is about consultation and
> primarily about where this king's connections are meaningful - not to the
> townspeople, and not to his death, but to him and his life and his known
> affiliations.
>
> Col
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Pamela ýý"
> >
> >
> >
> > This is a real bugaboo of mine. I donýýýt think Yorkýýýs cause is helped
> by mis-stating the evidence. JAH is quite clear that Richard never
> expressed any desire about where he wanted to be buried. He did plan to
> found a chantry with 100 priests at York Minster, but that doesnýýýt
> necessarily mean Richard wanted to be buried there. As has been said
> elsewhere, it is possible that he wanted to be buried at York when he was
> Duke of Gloucester, but as King his ideas probably would have changed.
> Anne, of course, is buried at Westminster Abbey. Edward IV is buried at St.
> Georgeýýýs Chapel Windsor, and it is very possible that this is what
> Richard would have had in mind. Another option would have been at
> Fotheringhay, where his parents are buried. I am sure that they are right
> when they say that Richard never would have chosen to be buried at
> Leicester ýý" but as Iýýýve said many times before, I personally donýýýt
> object to him
> being reinterred in Leicester Cathedral, as long as he is accorded a
> proper table-top tomb, and Iýýým sure that there is a way that that can be
> arranged without distracting unduly or intruding too much in the main aisle
> (like, put Richardýýýs tomb in one of the aisles or a chapel, off to the
> side).
> >
> >
> >
> > BTW, JAH also mentioned another place in Leicester that would be able to
> provide a suitable burial ýý" itýýýs a Dominican, Roman Catholic Church in
> Leicester, I believe, which he indicated would be happy to see Richard
> interred in a table-top tomb. Since Richard was interred in the Grey Friars
> Church, and the Grey Friars have always had close relations with the Black
> Friars.
> >
> >
> >
> > Those are some of my thoughts on the matter, anyway.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 Pamela Furmidge
> > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:29 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row
> heads to High Court
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I see the article contains the following:
> >
> > "One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal
> action.
> > "It was his wish," she said.
> > "It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his
> remains to be buried in York, amongst his family.
> > "There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains
> there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than
> Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
> > "So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
> > I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents'
> keep mentioning.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > FYI, bit of news
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
to High Court


> He would not have chosen to be buried in Leicester.

Not as such, no, but if you had said to him "In the event of your dying in
battle, would you like to be buried alongside your men - wherever that might
happen to be?" he might well have said yes.

> Leicester concerns his death and post-mortem ill-treatment and burial;

Absolutely, but it wasn't just any death - it was a famous and admired
death, one where he was making a definite stand, and it was the last death
of an English king in battle. So it's like burying Nelson near Trafalgar -
which we didn't do, but if we *had* done, I think many people would have
approved of doing so.

Thank you, Christine: I appreciate knowing that on this forum, it's not just me considering some of these points.

Col

--- In , "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hello colynbourne, You are not in the minority I can assure you, there are many people I know who will appreciate the information you have posted. It is my belief that as with Richard and Edward's father and brother who were moved from Pontefract to Fotheringhay, Anne may well have been moved to York and little Edward to join her and Richard when his time came. People keep going on about Richard not making a will to say where he wished to be buried but lets face it Tudor would have destroyed it. Also Tudor would never have let Richard be buried in York it would probably become something of a shrine.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > The legal challenge is primarily on the lack of consultation.
> >
> > A small number of individuals from Leicester and from the Society took it upon themselves to locally decide, even before remains were found, even before they were confirmed as Richard, to choose where to re-inter them. This decision and process should not have even begun *until* the remains were confirmed as Richard in February. The process in no way conforms with good practice, and interring known individuals in the nearest burial ground without consultation is *not* good practice.
> >
> > In the years during which PL and JAH were conducting the negotiations for the dig (and reinterment in Leicester), the RIII Society produced several articles speaking strongly and academically of Richard's connection with York. For the duration of my membership of the Society - several decades - I have been under the strong impression that Richard's most important connections and affiliations were in the north and with York in particular. That this now seems to be completely sidelined in favour of the place where he died - not where he lived and spent his life - is astonishing to me.
> >
> > Is there direct documentation that says Richard wished to be buried in York? - no, there is not. But he was founded the chantry there to an immense cost, and did this whilst he was King, not whilst he was Duke of Gloucester: he was prepared to spend the equivalent of well over £1 million to create this. This is more than suggestive that he intended it to be his mausoleum. He buried his son in the north - another possible indication. It is true we cannot know whether York was definitely his planned place - whether Anne might have been moved from Westminster, or whether in the light of a possible new marriage, he might have been buried in York alongside Joanna of Portugal... but we can assess the possible likelihood of being a very strong, if not the strongest, contender for a location. He would not have chosen to be buried in Leicester.
> >
> > Richard himself reinterred people in places appropriate to them; John Howard was taken to a place meaningful to him after Bosworth; there is a possibility that Brackenbury was also buried in his home-church. I know that it is fitting to inter the dead in accordance with their possible wishes - and that Leicester in all likelihood would not have been his wish; and that York may well have been his wish. Dr Lin Foxhall stated in late Oct last year that people were "jumping the gun" discussing reinterment locations until the announcement about the remains was made (that no possible discussion at all was on the cards, was not evident at that point). Whenever there is an open poll (nationally) on the location, the result speaks overwhelmingly in favour of York.
> >
> > Prof Eamon Duffy of Cambridge, an expert on medieval catholicism, has stated that ideally Richard should be buried in a medieval cathedral with a "significant association with his history,". At least four other professors in Medieval History with a special interest and expertise in Richard's life, have stated that they believe Richard might have been intending York as his mausoleum and it would be appropriate for him to be buried there.
> >
> > Richard had to work in the north, yes, but he seems to have been intensely involved in the life of York, and in the Minster and its clerics. He was there at the dedication in 1472; he and Anne were made members of the Corpus Christi Guild there; he invested his son there; he spent serious amounts of time there on various issues; he gave monies for the walls there; he spent the longest time on his royal progress there. And importantly he called travelling to York a "home-coming".
> >
> > Leicester concerns his death and post-mortem ill-treatment and burial; York is about the man's life. Richard's critical associations are those exhibited in his life, not in the location of his defeat and horrendous burial: that is what should be respected in the choice of location.
> >
> > It seems - remarkably - I am in the minority here, but there are many people (including the Chair and at least one other key member of the Advisory Panel for Burials in England) who feel that the whole process of deciding a location a) was done without public accountability or wider consultation and b) should not have begun until Feb 4th at the earliest. This is in part why the legal challenge was needed, sadly. This is not about any city's "rights to Richard" or their financial needs or how many pubs/roads they have named after Richard: it is about consultation and primarily about where this king's connections are meaningful - not to the townspeople, and not to his death, but to him and his life and his known affiliations.
> >
> > Col
> >
> > --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Pamela â€"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a real bugaboo of mine. I don’t think York’s cause is helped by mis-stating the evidence. JAH is quite clear that Richard never expressed any desire about where he wanted to be buried. He did plan to found a chantry with 100 priests at York Minster, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Richard wanted to be buried there. As has been said elsewhere, it is possible that he wanted to be buried at York when he was Duke of Gloucester, but as King his ideas probably would have changed. Anne, of course, is buried at Westminster Abbey. Edward IV is buried at St. George’s Chapel Windsor, and it is very possible that this is what Richard would have had in mind. Another option would have been at Fotheringhay, where his parents are buried. I am sure that they are right when they say that Richard never would have chosen to be buried at Leicester â€" but as I’ve said many times before, I personally don’t object to him being reinterred in Leicester Cathedral, as long as he is accorded a proper table-top tomb, and I’m sure that there is a way that that can be arranged without distracting unduly or intruding too much in the main aisle (like, put Richard’s tomb in one of the aisles or a chapel, off to the side).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > BTW, JAH also mentioned another place in Leicester that would be able to provide a suitable burial â€" it’s a Dominican, Roman Catholic Church in Leicester, I believe, which he indicated would be happy to see Richard interred in a table-top tomb. Since Richard was interred in the Grey Friars Church, and the Grey Friars have always had close relations with the Black Friars.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Those are some of my thoughts on the matter, anyway.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 Pamela Furmidge
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:29 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I see the article contains the following:
> > >
> > > "One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal action.
> > > "It was his wish," she said.
> > > "It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his remains to be buried in York, amongst his family.
> > > "There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
> > > "So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
> > > I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents' keep mentioning.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FYI, bit of news
> > >
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I take your points, but I don't think we can surmise any useful answers from "if we had asked such and such a question in these circumstances...." When a person's burial location is considered, it is usually their life and affiliations that are called upon as likely influences. Richard had no connection with Leicester beyond his death. His burial there is connected with Tudor dumping him in what was essentially a backwater town.

As someone usefully pointed out on the RIII FB page - "The French Prince Imperial, who died fighting for Britain in the Zulu War, was buried in Chislehurst. Prince Henry of Battenberg, Queen Victoria's son-in-law who died of malaria in the Ashanti campaign, was taken back to the Isle of Wight. One exception was HIS son Prince Maurice of Battenberg, who was killed during the British retreat from Mons in World War One and actually buried with his colleagues - but this was done at his mother's request - the Army had offered to repatriate him." There are many other examples of re-interments/burials in locations away from the site of death. Indeed Prince Michael of Kent stated in March re Richard - "I don't think it should follow that bodies should always be re-interred in the cities where they are discovered… King Richard needs to be buried somewhere appropriate…."

Anyway, the issue is principally with the fact that none of this was discussed at a wider/higher/deeper level with broader/higher consultation, *once* the remains were identified. The third option on the licence does deliberately allow for another location to be chosen.

Col

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: colyngbourne
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 5:38 PM
> Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
> to High Court
>
>
> > He would not have chosen to be buried in Leicester.
>
> Not as such, no, but if you had said to him "In the event of your dying in
> battle, would you like to be buried alongside your men - wherever that might
> happen to be?" he might well have said yes.
>
> > Leicester concerns his death and post-mortem ill-treatment and burial;
>
> Absolutely, but it wasn't just any death - it was a famous and admired
> death, one where he was making a definite stand, and it was the last death
> of an English king in battle. So it's like burying Nelson near Trafalgar -
> which we didn't do, but if we *had* done, I think many people would have
> approved of doing so.
>

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
to High Court


> Anyway, the issue is principally with the fact that none of this was
> discussed at a wider/higher/deeper level with broader/higher consultation,
> *once* the remains were identified. The third option on the licence does
> deliberately allow for another location to be chosen.

True - I think a good case can be made for Leicester, but one would like to
see the case being actually made, rather than presented as a fait accompli.
And really, he ought to be at Windsor or Westminster, or at least be offered
the chance to be, and the fact that that hasn't even been officially
discussed is a bit of a slight.

Excellent post!

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> The legal challenge is primarily on the lack of consultation.
>
> A small number of individuals from Leicester and from the Society took it upon themselves to locally decide, even before remains were found, even before they were confirmed as Richard, to choose where to re-inter them. This decision and process should not have even begun *until* the remains were confirmed as Richard in February. The process in no way conforms with good practice, and interring known individuals in the nearest burial ground without consultation is *not* good practice.
>
> In the years during which PL and JAH were conducting the negotiations for the dig (and reinterment in Leicester), the RIII Society produced several articles speaking strongly and academically of Richard's connection with York. For the duration of my membership of the Society - several decades - I have been under the strong impression that Richard's most important connections and affiliations were in the north and with York in particular. That this now seems to be completely sidelined in favour of the place where he died - not where he lived and spent his life - is astonishing to me.
>
> Is there direct documentation that says Richard wished to be buried in York? - no, there is not. But he was founded the chantry there to an immense cost, and did this whilst he was King, not whilst he was Duke of Gloucester: he was prepared to spend the equivalent of well over £1 million to create this. This is more than suggestive that he intended it to be his mausoleum. He buried his son in the north - another possible indication. It is true we cannot know whether York was definitely his planned place - whether Anne might have been moved from Westminster, or whether in the light of a possible new marriage, he might have been buried in York alongside Joanna of Portugal... but we can assess the possible likelihood of being a very strong, if not the strongest, contender for a location. He would not have chosen to be buried in Leicester.
>
> Richard himself reinterred people in places appropriate to them; John Howard was taken to a place meaningful to him after Bosworth; there is a possibility that Brackenbury was also buried in his home-church. I know that it is fitting to inter the dead in accordance with their possible wishes - and that Leicester in all likelihood would not have been his wish; and that York may well have been his wish. Dr Lin Foxhall stated in late Oct last year that people were "jumping the gun" discussing reinterment locations until the announcement about the remains was made (that no possible discussion at all was on the cards, was not evident at that point). Whenever there is an open poll (nationally) on the location, the result speaks overwhelmingly in favour of York.
>
> Prof Eamon Duffy of Cambridge, an expert on medieval catholicism, has stated that ideally Richard should be buried in a medieval cathedral with a "significant association with his history,". At least four other professors in Medieval History with a special interest and expertise in Richard's life, have stated that they believe Richard might have been intending York as his mausoleum and it would be appropriate for him to be buried there.
>
> Richard had to work in the north, yes, but he seems to have been intensely involved in the life of York, and in the Minster and its clerics. He was there at the dedication in 1472; he and Anne were made members of the Corpus Christi Guild there; he invested his son there; he spent serious amounts of time there on various issues; he gave monies for the walls there; he spent the longest time on his royal progress there. And importantly he called travelling to York a "home-coming".
>
> Leicester concerns his death and post-mortem ill-treatment and burial; York is about the man's life. Richard's critical associations are those exhibited in his life, not in the location of his defeat and horrendous burial: that is what should be respected in the choice of location.
>
> It seems - remarkably - I am in the minority here, but there are many people (including the Chair and at least one other key member of the Advisory Panel for Burials in England) who feel that the whole process of deciding a location a) was done without public accountability or wider consultation and b) should not have begun until Feb 4th at the earliest. This is in part why the legal challenge was needed, sadly. This is not about any city's "rights to Richard" or their financial needs or how many pubs/roads they have named after Richard: it is about consultation and primarily about where this king's connections are meaningful - not to the townspeople, and not to his death, but to him and his life and his known affiliations.
>
> Col
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Pamela â€"
> >
> >
> >
> > This is a real bugaboo of mine. I don’t think York’s cause is helped by mis-stating the evidence. JAH is quite clear that Richard never expressed any desire about where he wanted to be buried. He did plan to found a chantry with 100 priests at York Minster, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Richard wanted to be buried there. As has been said elsewhere, it is possible that he wanted to be buried at York when he was Duke of Gloucester, but as King his ideas probably would have changed. Anne, of course, is buried at Westminster Abbey. Edward IV is buried at St. George’s Chapel Windsor, and it is very possible that this is what Richard would have had in mind. Another option would have been at Fotheringhay, where his parents are buried. I am sure that they are right when they say that Richard never would have chosen to be buried at Leicester â€" but as I’ve said many times before, I personally don’t object to him being reinterred in Leicester Cathedral, as long as he is accorded a proper table-top tomb, and I’m sure that there is a way that that can be arranged without distracting unduly or intruding too much in the main aisle (like, put Richard’s tomb in one of the aisles or a chapel, off to the side).
> >
> >
> >
> > BTW, JAH also mentioned another place in Leicester that would be able to provide a suitable burial â€" it’s a Dominican, Roman Catholic Church in Leicester, I believe, which he indicated would be happy to see Richard interred in a table-top tomb. Since Richard was interred in the Grey Friars Church, and the Grey Friars have always had close relations with the Black Friars.
> >
> >
> >
> > Those are some of my thoughts on the matter, anyway.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 Pamela Furmidge
> > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:29 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I see the article contains the following:
> >
> > "One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal action.
> > "It was his wish," she said.
> > "It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his remains to be buried in York, amongst his family.
> > "There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
> > "So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
> > I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents' keep mentioning.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > FYI, bit of news
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Well, it's really more than a *bit* of a slight, & why some of us feel so
upset. Oops, breaking my vow to hold my tongue. (Will now go back into
lurk mode).

A J


On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: colyngbourne
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:27 PM
>
> Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
> to High Court
>
> > Anyway, the issue is principally with the fact that none of this was
> > discussed at a wider/higher/deeper level with broader/higher
> consultation,
> > *once* the remains were identified. The third option on the licence does
> > deliberately allow for another location to be chosen.
>
> True - I think a good case can be made for Leicester, but one would like
> to
> see the case being actually made, rather than presented as a fait
> accompli.
> And really, he ought to be at Windsor or Westminster, or at least be
> offered
> the chance to be, and the fact that that hasn't even been officially
> discussed is a bit of a slight.
>
>
>

Well the Abbey, apart from being a Tudor hotbed, has no room for anyone at all anymore, it's rammed.  Of course they could get rid of the Poets etc and just keep the monarchs.  Then there'd be plenty of room for Richard. 
 
As for Windsor, well that is closely associated with the present Queen and bearing in mind her age  she probably thinks Richard's a wrong un and the Tudors were glorious.
 
To paraphrase Groucho, I don't want our boy to go anywhere they don't really want him so that's out both of those two.


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013, 20:21
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court


Well, it's really more than a *bit* of a slight, & why some of us feel so
upset.  Oops, breaking my vow to hold my tongue.  (Will now go back into
lurk mode).

A J


On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: colyngbourne
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:27 PM
>
> Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
> to High Court
>
> > Anyway, the issue is principally with the fact that none of this was
> > discussed at a wider/higher/deeper level with broader/higher
> consultation,
> > *once* the remains were identified. The third option on the licence does
> > deliberately allow for another location to be chosen.
>
> True - I think a good case can be made for Leicester, but one would like
> to
> see the case being actually made, rather than presented as a fait
> accompli.
> And really, he ought to be at Windsor or Westminster, or at least be
> offered
> the chance to be, and the fact that that hasn't even been officially
> discussed is a bit of a slight.
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
to High Court


> To paraphrase Groucho, I don't want our boy to go anywhere they don't
> really want him

Very true, yes - he should go somewhere where he'll be loved. But at least
Leicester *are* keen to have him - even if perhaps not in all cases for the
right reasons.

In the letter I wrote to Leicester I suggested they should have his boar
carved in relief on his tomb, in part because children would love it. I'd
like to think of hundreds of generations of children patting the nice piggy
every time they went past, and so having warm fuzzy feelings for the man
whose emblem it is.

I'm sure Richard DID state where he wished to be buried: in his will. He would almost certainly have made a will before the battle, and funeral and burial arrangements were always top of the agenda in a medieval will. Pity it doesn't survive, but it doesn't so there we are.
Marie

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Even kings don't always, at 32, think they might die. I think he expected to win his last battle, and had he lived he would probably have made his wishes clear. There is just so much we do not know. I am not joining the fray, but I did do questions the "family" *knowing* he wanted to be buried in York.
>
> On May 2, 2013, at 5:25 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...<mailto:pamela.furmidge@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I couldn't agree more, Johanne, regarding these spurious claims about Richard's intentions. As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no documentation at all regarding his desire to be buried anywhere. He endowed chantry chapels in a number of places and unless he intended his, and his family's remains, be split up like saints' relics, it is obvious he wasn't setting up places for his burial.
>
> It is possible that Edward IV intended St George's Windsor to be the final resting place of the Yorkist Kings, but again, as far as I know, there is no documentation existing to confirm this.
>
> ________________________________
> Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>> wrote
>
>
> Hi, Pamela –
>
> This is a real bugaboo of mine. I don't think York's cause is helped by mis-stating the evidence. JAH is quite clear that Richard never expressed any desire about where he wanted to be buried. He did plan to found a chantry with 100 priests at York Minster, but that doesn't necessarily mean Richard wanted to be buried there. As has been said elsewhere, it is possible that he wanted to be buried at York when he was Duke of Gloucester, but as King his ideas probably would have changed. Anne, of course, is buried at Westminster Abbey. Edward IV is buried at St. George's Chapel Windsor, and it is very possible that this is what Richard would have had in mind. Another option would have been at Fotheringhay, where his parents are buried. I am sure that they are right when they say that Richard never would have chosen to be buried at Leicester – but as I've said many times before, I personally don't object to him being reinterred in Leicester
> Cathedral, as long as he is accorded a proper table-top tomb, and I'm sure that there is a way that that can be arranged without distracting unduly or intruding too much in the main aisle (like, put Richard's tomb in one of the aisles or a chapel, off to the side).
>
> BTW, JAH also mentioned another place in Leicester that would be able to provide a suitable burial – it's a Dominican, Roman Catholic Church in Leicester, I believe, which he indicated would be happy to see Richard interred in a table-top tomb. Since Richard was interred in the Grey Friars Church, and the Grey Friars have always had close relations with the Black Friars.
>
> Those are some of my thoughts on the matter, anyway.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
>
> or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:29 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
>
> I see the article contains the following:
>
> "One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal action.
> "It was his wish," she said.
> "It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his remains to be buried in York, amongst his family.
> "There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
> "So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
> I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents' keep mentioning.
>
> ________________________________
>
> FYI, bit of news
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> The legal challenge is primarily on the lack of consultation.
>
> A small number of individuals from Leicester and from the Society took it upon themselves to locally decide, even before remains were found, even before they were confirmed as Richard, to choose where to re-inter them.

Marie replies:
The Society had nothing to do with it, but is not making a public fuss. Leicester University has the bit of paper, which puts it in their hands.

Here Lies Our Tourist Attraction vs. Here Lies Our King Of England

Looks from Leicester to York and decides it can always be worse.


"Get your Richard III romances, coasters, action figures, postcards, posters, t-shirts, toy battle-axe, mini-White Surrey, chess set featuring Anne and Richard as the King and Queen of Eeeeengland. Francis Lovell is the loyal knight, their son Edward is pawns, and let's not forget ol' Morton as the bishop and Middleham as the castle.

"What's that, m'dear? It's histories you want? Biographies? Scholarly analyses by the likes of that gent Ashdown-Hill? Those are over there in that dark corner. Covered in dust. And cobwebs. Watch out for the spiders.

"Now, as I was sayin', step right up and step inside, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Get yer picture taken with our fully functional, lifesize reproduction of Dickon the King -- the only one of its kind in the world! Based on a painstakingly accurate reproduction of his skeleton and formed of the most resilient, lifelike pseudo-flesh possible, assembled for your viewing pleasure and lighted just so, just inside here. Guaranteed to please like the inestimable Lord of the North we all know him to be. Was. Whatever.

"Our larger than life, life-sized, lifelike King Richard the Third stands a full two meters tall -- 'cause that's what all the women want him to be.

"Scoliosis? Never heard of it.

"Our Dickon's blue eyes are twinklin' and they ain't crossed a bit, we made sure of that.

"Set your wee son or daughter on the King's lap--hope they don't cry, 'cause he's scarier than a Tower guard--and take their picture for a mere £15.

"Set your wee self on the King's lap, kiss his cheek, and get a photo to remember your moment by for a mere £25. Come back in five years and we'll have figured out how to get Himself to kiss you back!

"Whenever our functional reproduction breaks, we get in our actor -- from Yorkshire! Really! -- to portray Pop-Star King Richard the Third (tm). Said actor has played Cap'n Jack Sparrow at all sci-fi/fantasy conventions held in Milton Keynes for the past ten years, and Good King Hal at a coupla American renaissance faires, so he's a real pro! Please, ladies: he says touching and huggies is fine, drooling is not; it tarnishes the gold-plated collar, and he's on his third one this year.

"What's that? You're only looking to pay your respects to the king? Want to sit in meditation awhile and contemplate his life and death? The cathedral's up there. A bit boring, but yeah...he's buried just up there.

AVERAGE PERSON ON THE STREET: I hear they just decided where to bury the bones of Richard the Third. Who finally got him?"

RICARDIAN: [In tears] Blackpool.


~Weds

Right, unless, of course, the elusive 16th cousins have the will! And, dummy me, he was a King, so certainly all provisions were thought of.

On May 2, 2013, at 4:12 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



I'm sure Richard DID state where he wished to be buried: in his will. He would almost certainly have made a will before the battle, and funeral and burial arrangements were always top of the agenda in a medieval will. Pity it doesn't survive, but it doesn't so there we are.
Marie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Even kings don't always, at 32, think they might die. I think he expected to win his last battle, and had he lived he would probably have made his wishes clear. There is just so much we do not know. I am not joining the fray, but I did do questions the "family" *knowing* he wanted to be buried in York.
>
> On May 2, 2013, at 5:25 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...<mailto:pamela.furmidge@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I couldn't agree more, Johanne, regarding these spurious claims about Richard's intentions. As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no documentation at all regarding his desire to be buried anywhere. He endowed chantry chapels in a number of places and unless he intended his, and his family's remains, be split up like saints' relics, it is obvious he wasn't setting up places for his burial.
>
> It is possible that Edward IV intended St George's Windsor to be the final resting place of the Yorkist Kings, but again, as far as I know, there is no documentation existing to confirm this.
>
> ________________________________
> Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com<http://40hotmail.com>>> wrote
>
>
> Hi, Pamela ý
>
> This is a real bugaboo of mine. I don't think York's cause is helped by mis-stating the evidence. JAH is quite clear that Richard never expressed any desire about where he wanted to be buried. He did plan to found a chantry with 100 priests at York Minster, but that doesn't necessarily mean Richard wanted to be buried there. As has been said elsewhere, it is possible that he wanted to be buried at York when he was Duke of Gloucester, but as King his ideas probably would have changed. Anne, of course, is buried at Westminster Abbey. Edward IV is buried at St. George's Chapel Windsor, and it is very possible that this is what Richard would have had in mind. Another option would have been at Fotheringhay, where his parents are buried. I am sure that they are right when they say that Richard never would have chosen to be buried at Leicester ý but as I've said many times before, I personally don't object to him being reinterred in Leicester
> Cathedral, as long as he is accorded a proper table-top tomb, and I'm sure that there is a way that that can be arranged without distracting unduly or intruding too much in the main aisle (like, put Richard's tomb in one of the aisles or a chapel, off to the side).
>
> BTW, JAH also mentioned another place in Leicester that would be able to provide a suitable burial ý it's a Dominican, Roman Catholic Church in Leicester, I believe, which he indicated would be happy to see Richard interred in a table-top tomb. Since Richard was interred in the Grey Friars Church, and the Grey Friars have always had close relations with the Black Friars.
>
> Those are some of my thoughts on the matter, anyway.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com<http://40hotmail.com>>
>
> or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:29 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
>
> I see the article contains the following:
>
> "One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal action.
> "It was his wish," she said.
> "It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his remains to be buried in York, amongst his family.
> "There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
> "So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
> I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents' keep mentioning.
>
> ________________________________
>
> FYI, bit of news
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Weds, you MUST write a book! Or perhaps a sit-com. That is hilarious!

On May 2, 2013, at 4:58 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:



Here Lies Our Tourist Attraction vs. Here Lies Our King Of England

Looks from Leicester to York and decides it can always be worse.

"Get your Richard III romances, coasters, action figures, postcards, posters, t-shirts, toy battle-axe, mini-White Surrey, chess set featuring Anne and Richard as the King and Queen of Eeeeengland. Francis Lovell is the loyal knight, their son Edward is pawns, and let's not forget ol' Morton as the bishop and Middleham as the castle.

"What's that, m'dear? It's histories you want? Biographies? Scholarly analyses by the likes of that gent Ashdown-Hill? Those are over there in that dark corner. Covered in dust. And cobwebs. Watch out for the spiders.

"Now, as I was sayin', step right up and step inside, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Get yer picture taken with our fully functional, lifesize reproduction of Dickon the King -- the only one of its kind in the world! Based on a painstakingly accurate reproduction of his skeleton and formed of the most resilient, lifelike pseudo-flesh possible, assembled for your viewing pleasure and lighted just so, just inside here. Guaranteed to please like the inestimable Lord of the North we all know him to be. Was. Whatever.

"Our larger than life, life-sized, lifelike King Richard the Third stands a full two meters tall -- 'cause that's what all the women want him to be.

"Scoliosis? Never heard of it.

"Our Dickon's blue eyes are twinklin' and they ain't crossed a bit, we made sure of that.

"Set your wee son or daughter on the King's lap--hope they don't cry, 'cause he's scarier than a Tower guard--and take their picture for a mere ý15.

"Set your wee self on the King's lap, kiss his cheek, and get a photo to remember your moment by for a mere ý25. Come back in five years and we'll have figured out how to get Himself to kiss you back!

"Whenever our functional reproduction breaks, we get in our actor -- from Yorkshire! Really! -- to portray Pop-Star King Richard the Third (tm). Said actor has played Cap'n Jack Sparrow at all sci-fi/fantasy conventions held in Milton Keynes for the past ten years, and Good King Hal at a coupla American renaissance faires, so he's a real pro! Please, ladies: he says touching and huggies is fine, drooling is not; it tarnishes the gold-plated collar, and he's on his third one this year.

"What's that? You're only looking to pay your respects to the king? Want to sit in meditation awhile and contemplate his life and death? The cathedral's up there. A bit boring, but yeah...he's buried just up there.

AVERAGE PERSON ON THE STREET: I hear they just decided where to bury the bones of Richard the Third. Who finally got him?"

RICARDIAN: [In tears] Blackpool.

~Weds

Hi Johanne,              I had the impression that the statue to Richard in Leicester was funded by the Richard III Society rather than by the City of Leicester. Richard was not killed and buried in York, so it was not an obvious place for a memorial, and yet there is a museum there to him - which I'd say is good evidence that someone cares. Plus the evidence which Carol quoted. And yes - pubs. And then there's the rest of the county, and surrounding area, evoking Richard in lots of ways from the genuine to the apocryphal. People I know who live in York and are interested in him have been surprised and hurt to read all over the internet that "they had never shown an interest until now". 
From what I can see, the dig to find Richard's bones was carried out at the instigation of the Richard III Society with the involvement - reluctant at first - of the University of Leicester and Leceister Council, who happened to be on the scene. I don't know if anyone else who happened not to be local was asked to be involved, but the funds which did this work do not come from the people of Leicester - they are national funds; even city councils are funded by central government to the best of my knowledge. Once the bones were found, other national bodies were involved, including the Royal Armouries Museum. I don't think anywhere should be able to claim that it has "bought" someone's bones; and even it could I don't see any argument that Leicester has done so. 
It looks as if the relationship between the Society and Leicester University has gone very sour, with the Society being more or less sidelined as the University takes credit for the project. Really - I can't see this as some happy party which York has rudely gate-crashed without bringing a bottle! :-) 

--- On Thu, 2/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
To:
Date: Thursday, 2 May, 2013, 12:34
















 









Hi, Pamela -

Admittedly, I am sticking my oar in where I have no business, which I admit.

However, I guess I have a right to a point of view . . . and it is this, in

brief.



I first became aware of all the recent developments as a result of the press

conference they held on Sept. 12 last year. Since then I have followed all

developments with rapt interest. What I saw at the time was a partnership

between the RIII Society (especially "Society ramrod" Philippa Langley :-) )

and the various Leicester-based groups (especially the University, the

archeological team, and the town) to fund and spur the search for Richard.

York was nowhere in evidence, nor to the best of my knowledge, have any of

those "collateral descendants," been in evidence for the last 500+ years.



During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond

regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for

showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III

School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded

by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).

Not a peep from anyone at York.



Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to

commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own

initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.

I second this! :-)

--- On Thu, 2/5/13, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one meaning
> To: "<>" <>
> Date: Thursday, 2 May, 2013, 23:04

> Weds, you MUST write a book! Or
> perhaps a sit-com. That is hilarious!
>
> On May 2, 2013, at 4:58 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Here Lies Our Tourist Attraction vs. Here Lies Our King Of
> England
>
> Looks from Leicester to York and decides it can always be
> worse.
>
> "Get your Richard III romances, coasters, action figures,
> postcards, posters, t-shirts, toy battle-axe, mini-White
> Surrey, chess set featuring Anne and Richard as the King and
> Queen of Eeeeengland. Francis Lovell is the loyal knight,
> their son Edward is pawns, and let's not forget ol' Morton
> as the bishop and Middleham as the castle.
>
> "What's that, m'dear? It's histories you want? Biographies?
> Scholarly analyses by the likes of that gent Ashdown-Hill?
> Those are over there in that dark corner. Covered in dust.
> And cobwebs. Watch out for the spiders.
>
> "Now, as I was sayin', step right up and step inside, you
> ain't seen nothin' yet! Get yer picture taken with our fully
> functional, lifesize reproduction of Dickon the King -- the
> only one of its kind in the world! Based on a painstakingly
> accurate reproduction of his skeleton and formed of the most
> resilient, lifelike pseudo-flesh possible, assembled for
> your viewing pleasure and lighted just so, just inside here.
> Guaranteed to please like the inestimable Lord of the North
> we all know him to be. Was. Whatever.
>
> "Our larger than life, life-sized, lifelike King Richard the
> Third stands a full two meters tall -- 'cause that's what
> all the women want him to be.
>
> "Scoliosis? Never heard of it.
>
> "Our Dickon's blue eyes are twinklin' and they ain't crossed
> a bit, we made sure of that.
>
> "Set your wee son or daughter on the King's lap--hope they
> don't cry, 'cause he's scarier than a Tower guard--and take
> their picture for a mere £15.
>
> "Set your wee self on the King's lap, kiss his cheek, and
> get a photo to remember your moment by for a mere £25. Come
> back in five years and we'll have figured out how to get
> Himself to kiss you back!
>
> "Whenever our functional reproduction breaks, we get in our
> actor -- from Yorkshire! Really! -- to portray Pop-Star King
> Richard the Third (tm). Said actor has played Cap'n Jack
> Sparrow at all sci-fi/fantasy conventions held in Milton
> Keynes for the past ten years, and Good King Hal at a coupla
> American renaissance faires, so he's a real pro! Please,
> ladies: he says touching and huggies is fine, drooling is
> not; it tarnishes the gold-plated collar, and he's on his
> third one this year.
>
> "What's that? You're only looking to pay your respects to
> the king? Want to sit in meditation awhile and contemplate
> his life and death? The cathedral's up there. A bit boring,
> but yeah...he's buried just up there.
>
> AVERAGE PERSON ON THE STREET: I hear they just decided where
> to bury the bones of Richard the Third. Who finally got
> him?"
>
> RICARDIAN: [In tears] Blackpool.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     [email protected]
>
>

Hi Colyngbourne
I would like to say that you are not in the minority and I agree with your sentiments. It is the lack of consultation and being outflanked by those whose motives are not "pure" and transparent, that is so frustrating. As evidenced by the underhand way the University has steamrollered the whole process using "legal" speak and technicalities to bamboozle and muddy the process. In addition, the lack of information and actual misinformation as to where the remains would be reinterred has left a trail of confusion. Whatever happened to accountability? The whole process should have been restarted when the remains were identified as Richard as that nullified their original permit, which was for unidentified remains. The lack of intervention from government departments such as the Ministry of Justice, which should have stepped in at that point, has allowed this situation to continue without check. There appears to be no check on the University's decision-making process whose high-handed attitude and refusal to even discuss the matter distances them from the on-going debate which is shown in the polls, letters and high court appeals. The silence of government intervention in the matter is giving the University, councillors, and church officials in Leicester carte blanche as to how Richard and his reputation will be viewed in the future.
Elaine



--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> The legal challenge is primarily on the lack of consultation.
>
> A small number of individuals from Leicester and from the Society took it upon themselves to locally decide, even before remains were found, even before they were confirmed as Richard, to choose where to re-inter them. This decision and process should not have even begun *until* the remains were confirmed as Richard in February. The process in no way conforms with good practice, and interring known individuals in the nearest burial ground without consultation is *not* good practice.
>
> In the years during which PL and JAH were conducting the negotiations for the dig (and reinterment in Leicester), the RIII Society produced several articles speaking strongly and academically of Richard's connection with York. For the duration of my membership of the Society - several decades - I have been under the strong impression that Richard's most important connections and affiliations were in the north and with York in particular. That this now seems to be completely sidelined in favour of the place where he died - not where he lived and spent his life - is astonishing to me.
>
> Is there direct documentation that says Richard wished to be buried in York? - no, there is not. But he was founded the chantry there to an immense cost, and did this whilst he was King, not whilst he was Duke of Gloucester: he was prepared to spend the equivalent of well over £1 million to create this. This is more than suggestive that he intended it to be his mausoleum. He buried his son in the north - another possible indication. It is true we cannot know whether York was definitely his planned place - whether Anne might have been moved from Westminster, or whether in the light of a possible new marriage, he might have been buried in York alongside Joanna of Portugal... but we can assess the possible likelihood of being a very strong, if not the strongest, contender for a location. He would not have chosen to be buried in Leicester.
>
> Richard himself reinterred people in places appropriate to them; John Howard was taken to a place meaningful to him after Bosworth; there is a possibility that Brackenbury was also buried in his home-church. I know that it is fitting to inter the dead in accordance with their possible wishes - and that Leicester in all likelihood would not have been his wish; and that York may well have been his wish. Dr Lin Foxhall stated in late Oct last year that people were "jumping the gun" discussing reinterment locations until the announcement about the remains was made (that no possible discussion at all was on the cards, was not evident at that point). Whenever there is an open poll (nationally) on the location, the result speaks overwhelmingly in favour of York.
>
> Prof Eamon Duffy of Cambridge, an expert on medieval catholicism, has stated that ideally Richard should be buried in a medieval cathedral with a "significant association with his history,". At least four other professors in Medieval History with a special interest and expertise in Richard's life, have stated that they believe Richard might have been intending York as his mausoleum and it would be appropriate for him to be buried there.
>
> Richard had to work in the north, yes, but he seems to have been intensely involved in the life of York, and in the Minster and its clerics. He was there at the dedication in 1472; he and Anne were made members of the Corpus Christi Guild there; he invested his son there; he spent serious amounts of time there on various issues; he gave monies for the walls there; he spent the longest time on his royal progress there. And importantly he called travelling to York a "home-coming".
>
> Leicester concerns his death and post-mortem ill-treatment and burial; York is about the man's life. Richard's critical associations are those exhibited in his life, not in the location of his defeat and horrendous burial: that is what should be respected in the choice of location.
>
> It seems - remarkably - I am in the minority here, but there are many people (including the Chair and at least one other key member of the Advisory Panel for Burials in England) who feel that the whole process of deciding a location a) was done without public accountability or wider consultation and b) should not have begun until Feb 4th at the earliest. This is in part why the legal challenge was needed, sadly. This is not about any city's "rights to Richard" or their financial needs or how many pubs/roads they have named after Richard: it is about consultation and primarily about where this king's connections are meaningful - not to the townspeople, and not to his death, but to him and his life and his known affiliations.
>
> Col
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Pamela â€"
> >
> >
> >
> > This is a real bugaboo of mine. I don’t think York’s cause is helped by mis-stating the evidence. JAH is quite clear that Richard never expressed any desire about where he wanted to be buried. He did plan to found a chantry with 100 priests at York Minster, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Richard wanted to be buried there. As has been said elsewhere, it is possible that he wanted to be buried at York when he was Duke of Gloucester, but as King his ideas probably would have changed. Anne, of course, is buried at Westminster Abbey. Edward IV is buried at St. George’s Chapel Windsor, and it is very possible that this is what Richard would have had in mind. Another option would have been at Fotheringhay, where his parents are buried. I am sure that they are right when they say that Richard never would have chosen to be buried at Leicester â€" but as I’ve said many times before, I personally don’t object to him being reinterred in Leicester Cathedral, as long as he is accorded a proper table-top tomb, and I’m sure that there is a way that that can be arranged without distracting unduly or intruding too much in the main aisle (like, put Richard’s tomb in one of the aisles or a chapel, off to the side).
> >
> >
> >
> > BTW, JAH also mentioned another place in Leicester that would be able to provide a suitable burial â€" it’s a Dominican, Roman Catholic Church in Leicester, I believe, which he indicated would be happy to see Richard interred in a table-top tomb. Since Richard was interred in the Grey Friars Church, and the Grey Friars have always had close relations with the Black Friars.
> >
> >
> >
> > Those are some of my thoughts on the matter, anyway.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 Pamela Furmidge
> > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:29 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I see the article contains the following:
> >
> > "One of the king's descendent's Vanessa Roe said she supported the legal action.
> > "It was his wish," she said.
> > "It is well documented throughout the centuries that he wanted his remains to be buried in York, amongst his family.
> > "There was a chancery being built which was going to have 100 chaplains there and his family was going to be buried in York itself, rather than Westminster, which is quite unusual for the time.
> > "So it shows you how much he loved the city.""
> > I would love to see the 'well documented' evidence these 'descendents' keep mentioning.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > FYI, bit of news
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22371814
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I'm working on it!

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Weds, you MUST write a book! Or perhaps a sit-com. That is hilarious!

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one
meaning


> I'm working on it!

Mind you, it was a *bit* like that when he was alive. Think of von Poppelau
being allowed, as a special treat, to watch the king eating - it must have
been like living in a fishbowl.

And we wonder where "privy council" came from!

On May 2, 2013, at 6:06 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: wednesday_mc
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one
meaning

> I'm working on it!

Mind you, it was a *bit* like that when he was alive. Think of von Poppelau
being allowed, as a special treat, to watch the king eating - it must have
been like living in a fishbowl.

The " descendants" might be dubious but I still have beef with the Leicester Cathedral about " honorable-dishonorable act" ! And throwing out the table tomb out of the window. If they are not bothered about his dignity why should we support this particular place? If York gives him a burial fit for a king, I will go with them. And every time there is a mention of " tourist money" I cringe. That should not be a factor in this. The factor should be proper respect for his remains and not sudden volte faces! ( end of rant)

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 2, 2013, at 12:23 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > [snip] During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).
> > Not a peep from anyone at York.
> >
> > Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
> > commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.
> >
> > Also, to the best of my knowledge, when Richard made the appeal for troops to help defend his Crown before Bosworth, the town fathers (like town fathers everywhere) dillied and dallied and never did send any troops. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with most of your post though I would mention the moving tribute to Richard in the York Civic Records when they received the terrible news that "King Richard, late mercifully reigning upon us" had been "piteously slain and murdered" in battle, a very fitting tribute despite York's confusion regarding the identity of the traitors (quoted from memory in modern English so it may not be exact). If I recall correctly, York, which had been ravaged by plague, sent about eighty men. Two, John Sponer or Spooner, Sergeant of the Mace (whatever that is) and John Nicholson, a messenger, rode ahead to meet with Richard at Nottingham. According to Kendall, the city had received word that the enemy had landed but no instructions from Northumberland, who was in charge of recruiting in the North. Not knowing what to do, they sent Sponer and Northumberland to Richard in Beskwood Lodge to "understand {Richard's pleasure in sending up any of his subjects within this city to his said grace for the subduing of his enemies late arrived in . . . Wales." Meanwhile, the council sent to any aldermen not ill with the plague for their advice and ordered all men in the city to "be ready in their most defensible array to attend upon the mayor" while they waited for word from Richard.
>
> John Sponer chose to remain and fight for Richard (he later delivered the bad news to York); Nicholson returned with the message that Richard needed their help. York immediately sent "four score men . . . defensibly arrayed . . . should in all haste possible" go to the aid of the king.
>
> We can only assume that had it not been for the plague and for Northumberland's not sending instructions to York that they would have sent a much larger contingent much earlier. As it was, they arrived too late to participate in the battle because, for whatever reason, Richard chose not to wait.
>
> I wouldn't blame York in Richard's day. The city was definitely loyal to and grateful to Richard. Even Francis Bacon, and admirer of Henry Tudor, wrote that in his day the memory of Richard III still "lay like lees in the bottom of men's hearts, and if the vessel was but stirred, it would come up."
>
> But it's certainly true that the "descendants" are stating Richard's supposed wishes on insufficient evidence. It seems that, whatever plans he had for his interrment as Duke of Gloucester changed when he became king. Most likely, he would have preferred to be buried either beside Anne at Westminster or beside Edward at Windsor. (He may have set aside a spot there near the one he chose for Henry VI. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read that except that it was online.)
>
> Carol
>
>

Yeah, but isn't von Poppelau the one who got Richard so fired up talking about killing Turks that the King forgot to eat?

I wonder if it he found it difficult to never be alone once he was made King.

~Weds

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> Mind you, it was a *bit* like that when he was alive. Think of von Poppelau being allowed, as a special treat, to watch the king eating - it must have been like living in a fishbowl.

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one
meaning


> Yeah, but isn't von Poppelau the one who got Richard so fired up talking
> about killing Turks that the King forgot to eat?

I don't recall whether he was eating at the time or not but yes to the rest
of it - it sounds like Richard wanted to be Charlemagne or the Lionheart
(except presumably not gay and not a prat). Of course this was not long
after his son's funeral, so he must have been in a very odd state of mind.

> I wonder if it he found it difficult to never be alone once he was made
> King.

Last night I was reading The Ultimate Book of Useless Information in the
lavvie and I came across the following quotation from Elizabeth I:

"We princes are set, as it were, upon stages in the sight and view of all
the world."

Plus ca change.... It must have been horrible being watched eating,
especially given the primitive cutlery - how do you bite into a hunk of meat
and then saw a piece off with your dagger in a dainty and refined way you
could bear to have the public gawping at? Maybe that's why Richard ate a
lot of fish....

I was wondering btw how much of Henry VIII's behaviour might have been
influenced by the knowledge of what happened to his grandfather - which he
presumably heard about from his mother, repeal of Titulus Regius or no
repeal of Titulus Regius. In his own warped and sinister way he might have
thought "I'll make sure *I* never get caught committing bigamy: if I decide
to remarry I'll get rid of the first wife, one way or another, before I
marry the next" and "No snivelling bishop is going to rule on the validity
of *my* marriage - the church will do as I say or suffer the consequences."

I rather liked the article in a York newspaper which said 'we lent him to you and now we want him back!'



________________________________
From: Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013, 23:04
Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court

 

Hi Johanne,              I had the impression that the statue to Richard in Leicester was funded by the Richard III Society rather than by the City of Leicester. Richard was not killed and buried in York, so it was not an obvious place for a memorial, and yet there is a museum there to him - which I'd say is good evidence that someone cares. Plus the evidence which Carol quoted. And yes - pubs. And then there's the rest of the county, and surrounding area, evoking Richard in lots of ways from the genuine to the apocryphal. People I know who live in York and are interested in him have been surprised and hurt to read all over the internet that "they had never shown an interest until now". 
From what I can see, the dig to find Richard's bones was carried out at the instigation of the Richard III Society with the involvement - reluctant at first - of the University of Leicester and Leceister Council, who happened to be on the scene. I don't know if anyone else who happened not to be local was asked to be involved, but the funds which did this work do not come from the people of Leicester - they are national funds; even city councils are funded by central government to the best of my knowledge. Once the bones were found, other national bodies were involved, including the Royal Armouries Museum. I don't think anywhere should be able to claim that it has "bought" someone's bones; and even it could I don't see any argument that Leicester has done so. 
It looks as if the relationship between the Society and Leicester University has gone very sour, with the Society being more or less sidelined as the University takes credit for the project. Really - I can't see this as some happy party which York has rudely gate-crashed without bringing a bottle! :-) 

--- On Thu, 2/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
To:
Date: Thursday, 2 May, 2013, 12:34

 

Hi, Pamela -

Admittedly, I am sticking my oar in where I have no business, which I admit.

However, I guess I have a right to a point of view . . . and it is this, in

brief.

I first became aware of all the recent developments as a result of the press

conference they held on Sept. 12 last year. Since then I have followed all

developments with rapt interest. What I saw at the time was a partnership

between the RIII Society (especially "Society ramrod" Philippa Langley :-) )

and the various Leicester-based groups (especially the University, the

archeological team, and the town) to fund and spur the search for Richard.

York was nowhere in evidence, nor to the best of my knowledge, have any of

those "collateral descendants," been in evidence for the last 500+ years.

During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond

regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for

showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III

School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded

by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).

Not a peep from anyone at York.

Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to

commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own

initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.

I understand that the Society was involved in choosing Leicester: upon being written to by a concerned Ricardian concerning the Cathedral's rejection of the table-tomb, Phil Stone replied - "when the tomb design was first shown to members of the Cathedral Chapter in 2010, it was thought very suitable and that there were several places where it could be erected which would not cause a problem. A few changes were suggested, all of which have been accommodated in the present design."

The "Society" (whoever we might take that to mean) therefore was basically approaching the cathedral in Leicester and agreeing upon it as the desired location, as early as 2010. Nowhere in the letter does Dr Stone suggest it was PL alone (and not in her representative role as a member of the Society) who had been in talks with the cathedral.

I wish the Society *would* make a public fuss and stand up for York - for the city it has promoted as "Richard's place" over many years. A study weekend held there in 2010 was entitled "RIII's York" - there is no other city in England - other than London perhaps - which could be substituted in that title and it make good sense.

Col

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > The legal challenge is primarily on the lack of consultation.
> >
> > A small number of individuals from Leicester and from the Society took it upon themselves to locally decide, even before remains were found, even before they were confirmed as Richard, to choose where to re-inter them.
>
> Marie replies:
> The Society had nothing to do with it, but is not making a public fuss. Leicester University has the bit of paper, which puts it in their hands.
>

Hi I too wish The Society would support York or at least consult it's members about Richard's re internment, but no we have had no consultations at all. I sometimes wonder what I am paying my subscription for.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I understand that the Society was involved in choosing Leicester: upon being written to by a concerned Ricardian concerning the Cathedral's rejection of the table-tomb, Phil Stone replied - "when the tomb design was first shown to members of the Cathedral Chapter in 2010, it was thought very suitable and that there were several places where it could be erected which would not cause a problem. A few changes were suggested, all of which have been accommodated in the present design."
>
> The "Society" (whoever we might take that to mean) therefore was basically approaching the cathedral in Leicester and agreeing upon it as the desired location, as early as 2010. Nowhere in the letter does Dr Stone suggest it was PL alone (and not in her representative role as a member of the Society) who had been in talks with the cathedral.
>
> I wish the Society *would* make a public fuss and stand up for York - for the city it has promoted as "Richard's place" over many years. A study weekend held there in 2010 was entitled "RIII's York" - there is no other city in England - other than London perhaps - which could be substituted in that title and it make good sense.
>
> Col
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The legal challenge is primarily on the lack of consultation.
> > >
> > > A small number of individuals from Leicester and from the Society took it upon themselves to locally decide, even before remains were found, even before they were confirmed as Richard, to choose where to re-inter them.
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > The Society had nothing to do with it, but is not making a public fuss. Leicester University has the bit of paper, which puts it in their hands.
> >
>

Sorry, didn't York withdraw their offer? There's no point in demanding that we be allowed to bury him there if the authorities have not first been persuaded to accept him.
Marie

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> The " descendants" might be dubious but I still have beef with the Leicester Cathedral about " honorable-dishonorable act" ! And throwing out the table tomb out of the window. If they are not bothered about his dignity why should we support this particular place? If York gives him a burial fit for a king, I will go with them. And every time there is a mention of " tourist money" I cringe. That should not be a factor in this. The factor should be proper respect for his remains and not sudden volte faces! ( end of rant)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 2, 2013, at 12:23 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip] During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).
> > > Not a peep from anyone at York.
> > >
> > > Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
> > > commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.
> > >
> > > Also, to the best of my knowledge, when Richard made the appeal for troops to help defend his Crown before Bosworth, the town fathers (like town fathers everywhere) dillied and dallied and never did send any troops. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I agree with most of your post though I would mention the moving tribute to Richard in the York Civic Records when they received the terrible news that "King Richard, late mercifully reigning upon us" had been "piteously slain and murdered" in battle, a very fitting tribute despite York's confusion regarding the identity of the traitors (quoted from memory in modern English so it may not be exact). If I recall correctly, York, which had been ravaged by plague, sent about eighty men. Two, John Sponer or Spooner, Sergeant of the Mace (whatever that is) and John Nicholson, a messenger, rode ahead to meet with Richard at Nottingham. According to Kendall, the city had received word that the enemy had landed but no instructions from Northumberland, who was in charge of recruiting in the North. Not knowing what to do, they sent Sponer and Northumberland to Richard in Beskwood Lodge to "understand {Richard's pleasure in sending up any of his subjects within this city to his said grace for the subduing of his enemies late arrived in . . . Wales." Meanwhile, the council sent to any aldermen not ill with the plague for their advice and ordered all men in the city to "be ready in their most defensible array to attend upon the mayor" while they waited for word from Richard.
> >
> > John Sponer chose to remain and fight for Richard (he later delivered the bad news to York); Nicholson returned with the message that Richard needed their help. York immediately sent "four score men . . . defensibly arrayed . . . should in all haste possible" go to the aid of the king.
> >
> > We can only assume that had it not been for the plague and for Northumberland's not sending instructions to York that they would have sent a much larger contingent much earlier. As it was, they arrived too late to participate in the battle because, for whatever reason, Richard chose not to wait.
> >
> > I wouldn't blame York in Richard's day. The city was definitely loyal to and grateful to Richard. Even Francis Bacon, and admirer of Henry Tudor, wrote that in his day the memory of Richard III still "lay like lees in the bottom of men's hearts, and if the vessel was but stirred, it would come up."
> >
> > But it's certainly true that the "descendants" are stating Richard's supposed wishes on insufficient evidence. It seems that, whatever plans he had for his interrment as Duke of Gloucester changed when he became king. Most likely, he would have preferred to be buried either beside Anne at Westminster or beside Edward at Windsor. (He may have set aside a spot there near the one he chose for Henry VI. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read that except that it was online.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I don't think 'we' are relevant. The Leicester people had to give a
place to bury the remains when they applied for the exhumation
licence. I don't see how the Richard III Society is a party to any of
this.

Best wishes
Christine

Quoting mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>:

> Sorry, didn't York withdraw their offer? There's no point in
> demanding that we be allowed to bury him there if the authorities
> have not first been persuaded to accept him.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo
> <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>>
>> The " descendants" might be dubious but I still have beef with the
>> Leicester Cathedral about " honorable-dishonorable act" ! And
>> throwing out the table tomb out of the window. If they are not
>> bothered about his dignity why should we support this particular
>> place? If York gives him a burial fit for a king, I will go with
>> them. And every time there is a mention of " tourist money" I
>> cringe. That should not be a factor in this. The factor should be
>> proper respect for his remains and not sudden volte faces! ( end of
>> rant)
>>
>> Ishita Bandyo
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>

I have been to York Minster very recently and they are happy to have him and will find a place for him.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, didn't York withdraw their offer? There's no point in demanding that we be allowed to bury him there if the authorities have not first been persuaded to accept him.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > The " descendants" might be dubious but I still have beef with the Leicester Cathedral about " honorable-dishonorable act" ! And throwing out the table tomb out of the window. If they are not bothered about his dignity why should we support this particular place? If York gives him a burial fit for a king, I will go with them. And every time there is a mention of " tourist money" I cringe. That should not be a factor in this. The factor should be proper respect for his remains and not sudden volte faces! ( end of rant)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On May 2, 2013, at 12:23 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip] During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).
> > > > Not a peep from anyone at York.
> > > >
> > > > Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
> > > > commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.
> > > >
> > > > Also, to the best of my knowledge, when Richard made the appeal for troops to help defend his Crown before Bosworth, the town fathers (like town fathers everywhere) dillied and dallied and never did send any troops. [snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I agree with most of your post though I would mention the moving tribute to Richard in the York Civic Records when they received the terrible news that "King Richard, late mercifully reigning upon us" had been "piteously slain and murdered" in battle, a very fitting tribute despite York's confusion regarding the identity of the traitors (quoted from memory in modern English so it may not be exact). If I recall correctly, York, which had been ravaged by plague, sent about eighty men. Two, John Sponer or Spooner, Sergeant of the Mace (whatever that is) and John Nicholson, a messenger, rode ahead to meet with Richard at Nottingham. According to Kendall, the city had received word that the enemy had landed but no instructions from Northumberland, who was in charge of recruiting in the North. Not knowing what to do, they sent Sponer and Northumberland to Richard in Beskwood Lodge to "understand {Richard's pleasure in sending up any of his subjects within this city to his said grace for the subduing of his enemies late arrived in . . . Wales." Meanwhile, the council sent to any aldermen not ill with the plague for their advice and ordered all men in the city to "be ready in their most defensible array to attend upon the mayor" while they waited for word from Richard.
> > >
> > > John Sponer chose to remain and fight for Richard (he later delivered the bad news to York); Nicholson returned with the message that Richard needed their help. York immediately sent "four score men . . . defensibly arrayed . . . should in all haste possible" go to the aid of the king.
> > >
> > > We can only assume that had it not been for the plague and for Northumberland's not sending instructions to York that they would have sent a much larger contingent much earlier. As it was, they arrived too late to participate in the battle because, for whatever reason, Richard chose not to wait.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't blame York in Richard's day. The city was definitely loyal to and grateful to Richard. Even Francis Bacon, and admirer of Henry Tudor, wrote that in his day the memory of Richard III still "lay like lees in the bottom of men's hearts, and if the vessel was but stirred, it would come up."
> > >
> > > But it's certainly true that the "descendants" are stating Richard's supposed wishes on insufficient evidence. It seems that, whatever plans he had for his interrment as Duke of Gloucester changed when he became king. Most likely, he would have preferred to be buried either beside Anne at Westminster or beside Edward at Windsor. (He may have set aside a spot there near the one he chose for Henry VI. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read that except that it was online.)
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Has York, and when I say York I mean York Minster not the citizens of York, ever offered or requested that Richard be buried there....I cannot for the life of me ever recall them putting forward a request or argument in this respect. I agree 100% with what Marie is saying...As far as I can tell York Minster don't want Richard anyway....what the citizens of York or Leicester or the Society want does not come into it...that's the truth of. eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, didn't York withdraw their offer? There's no point in demanding that we be allowed to bury him there if the authorities have not first been persuaded to accept him.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > The " descendants" might be dubious but I still have beef with the Leicester Cathedral about " honorable-dishonorable act" ! And throwing out the table tomb out of the window. If they are not bothered about his dignity why should we support this particular place? If York gives him a burial fit for a king, I will go with them. And every time there is a mention of " tourist money" I cringe. That should not be a factor in this. The factor should be proper respect for his remains and not sudden volte faces! ( end of rant)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On May 2, 2013, at 12:23 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip] During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).
> > > > Not a peep from anyone at York.
> > > >
> > > > Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
> > > > commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.
> > > >
> > > > Also, to the best of my knowledge, when Richard made the appeal for troops to help defend his Crown before Bosworth, the town fathers (like town fathers everywhere) dillied and dallied and never did send any troops. [snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I agree with most of your post though I would mention the moving tribute to Richard in the York Civic Records when they received the terrible news that "King Richard, late mercifully reigning upon us" had been "piteously slain and murdered" in battle, a very fitting tribute despite York's confusion regarding the identity of the traitors (quoted from memory in modern English so it may not be exact). If I recall correctly, York, which had been ravaged by plague, sent about eighty men. Two, John Sponer or Spooner, Sergeant of the Mace (whatever that is) and John Nicholson, a messenger, rode ahead to meet with Richard at Nottingham. According to Kendall, the city had received word that the enemy had landed but no instructions from Northumberland, who was in charge of recruiting in the North. Not knowing what to do, they sent Sponer and Northumberland to Richard in Beskwood Lodge to "understand {Richard's pleasure in sending up any of his subjects within this city to his said grace for the subduing of his enemies late arrived in . . . Wales." Meanwhile, the council sent to any aldermen not ill with the plague for their advice and ordered all men in the city to "be ready in their most defensible array to attend upon the mayor" while they waited for word from Richard.
> > >
> > > John Sponer chose to remain and fight for Richard (he later delivered the bad news to York); Nicholson returned with the message that Richard needed their help. York immediately sent "four score men . . . defensibly arrayed . . . should in all haste possible" go to the aid of the king.
> > >
> > > We can only assume that had it not been for the plague and for Northumberland's not sending instructions to York that they would have sent a much larger contingent much earlier. As it was, they arrived too late to participate in the battle because, for whatever reason, Richard chose not to wait.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't blame York in Richard's day. The city was definitely loyal to and grateful to Richard. Even Francis Bacon, and admirer of Henry Tudor, wrote that in his day the memory of Richard III still "lay like lees in the bottom of men's hearts, and if the vessel was but stirred, it would come up."
> > >
> > > But it's certainly true that the "descendants" are stating Richard's supposed wishes on insufficient evidence. It seems that, whatever plans he had for his interrment as Duke of Gloucester changed when he became king. Most likely, he would have preferred to be buried either beside Anne at Westminster or beside Edward at Windsor. (He may have set aside a spot there near the one he chose for Henry VI. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read that except that it was online.)
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi, Janet -

You're right, to the best of my knowledge, the statue of Richard at
Leicester, as well as the memorial slab, and the plaque at the Bow Bridge
(?) were provided by the RIII Society. If there was any indication otherwise
in what I wrote it was strictly unintentional. I believe in trying to keep
the arguments on both sides as factual as possible. Otherwise, all we're
doing is "fuzzifying the muddification," as Allan Fotheringham used to say.
J But, nevertheless, Leicester does have King Richard's Road (the road on
which he was brought back to Leicester, probably the same that he rode out
on to battle) and the King Richard III School. There may be other
remembrances as well that I am not aware of, not being either a Leicester
or a UK resident, unfortunately as far as I am concerned. I think the fact
that Leicester is smaller (including the Cathedral) and is not the burial
site of any other kings is a plus for everyone, including celebrating
Richard's memory into the future.



I have followed developments closely, as I mentioned. I have heard Richard
Buckley, head of the archeological team, speak about their involvement in
the search, and have read his statements in recorded interviews. It was not
that they were "reluctant" to get involved with the search for Richard, but
that they felt it was an approximately million-to-one shot that they would
find him. Many times he said, in historical archeology, you don't go looking
for a named individual, and find him. So his justification for the search
was to find out more about the Greyfriars, which was a search that was
likely to be successful. That doesn't mean they were reluctant to go
looking, probably it means that if they had to present the University's and
ULAS's case for the dig, they had to justify it primarily in terms of the
search to uncover an important part of Leicester's past, not primarily as a
search for Richard, unlike PL and of course the Society. J



Anyway, although the Town may be thinking of the RIII Trail and such things
as money-makers, the fact is that they are creating memorials, for which
they are spending the money, which are designed to be attractive as well as
educational. Some of the Town worthies certainly have spoken a bit
in-elegantly or crassly, but, hey, they are politicians, we can hardly
expect otherwise, upon occasion. It may be that Leicester, like the rest of
the UK, has been in a bit of a financial crisis, and you can't blame them
for seizing upon the amazing degree of interest worldwide in Richard as a
potential financial windfall. If it is done tastefully, I have no problem
with that, and I don't mind contributing my $$$$, as far as I am able.



As I wrote earlier, what has my nose out of joint is the proposal to put
King Richard under a slab. Bah, humbug, I say! Now, the fact is that there
have been discussions all along about what would happen if Richard was
found. Some of the parties may have thought this to be a hypothetical
exercise, but the RIII Society did run the tomb design by the parties at the
Cathedral, and there was approval, prior to the discovery of the remains. I
think it is very possible that all this was part of the process of inducing
agreement to the dig. That is, perhaps RIII Society indicated that it would
be agreeable, yes, if RIII were found, that he would be reinterred close by.
I would make it clear, I am speculating about that, but also, it was made
clear in previous press releases, articles and such, that in the case of
human remains which are excavated in a dig, the approved practice is
reinterment in the nearest consecrated ground. They indicated that this is
what has been decided in the case of Richard. I think it is a different
thing to propose reburying him within the UK. I mean, it's not like his body
is lying somewhere halfway around the world or anything. Leicester is the
approximate center of Richard's kingdom, an area he knew well; he had been
there on occasions prior to 1485. It is also *not* the "South" of England,
though personally I have nothing against the South - but I understand that
the Midlands is indeed a sort of a mediator between South and North of
England linguistically as well as geographically. Richard was born and
raised at Fotheringhay, then at Ludlow, then abroad, then at London, and
only later did he go to Yorkshire, to live and train under Warwick at
Middleham. However, to the best of my knowledge, he never lived at York.
Yes, Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales there, but he was
buried elsewhere. (Speaking of which, did the Yorkshire worthies carefully
tend and preserve EoM's grave?)



As I was getting to, I personally have my nose out of joint because of the
recent thing from the Interim Dean at Leicester about Richard's honourable
and dishonourable characteristics, and the slab thing. So, I think it is
natural for people like me to react emotionally and to then question the
whole process of the approval. But, the fact is that the remains were not
identified when the license to exhume was applied for, the fact is that they
only applied for the license because at that point they figured it was
Richard. Yes, perhaps the process is flawed. But I'm not sure that it is
invalid, no matter what our gripes. Frankly, however, I am personally
prepared to boycott the Cathedral and perhaps Leicester as a whole if
Richard is not accorded a proper tomb and other dignity that he deserves.
And I would be prepared to support a cenotaph at York or elsewhere which
would be a monument such as Richard richly deserves.



(There are probably more thoughts of this which escape me for the time
being. J)



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 Janet Ashton
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:05 PM
To:
Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads
to High Court





Hi Johanne, I had the impression that the statue to Richard in
Leicester was funded by the Richard III Society rather than by the City of
Leicester. Richard was not killed and buried in York, so it was not an
obvious place for a memorial, and yet there is a museum there to him - which
I'd say is good evidence that someone cares. Plus the evidence which Carol
quoted. And yes - pubs. And then there's the rest of the county, and
surrounding area, evoking Richard in lots of ways from the genuine to the
apocryphal. People I know who live in York and are interested in him have
been surprised and hurt to read all over the internet that "they had never
shown an interest until now".
From what I can see, the dig to find Richard's bones was carried out at the
instigation of the Richard III Society with the involvement - reluctant at
first - of the University of Leicester and Leceister Council, who happened
to be on the scene. I don't know if anyone else who happened not to be local
was asked to be involved, but the funds which did this work do not come from
the people of Leicester - they are national funds; even city councils are
funded by central government to the best of my knowledge. Once the bones
were found, other national bodies were involved, including the Royal
Armouries Museum. I don't think anywhere should be able to claim that it has
"bought" someone's bones; and even it could I don't see any argument that
Leicester has done so.
It looks as if the relationship between the Society and Leicester University
has gone very sour, with the Society being more or less sidelined as the
University takes credit for the project. Really - I can't see this as some
happy party which York has rudely gate-crashed without bringing a bottle!
:-)

--- On Thu, 2/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > wrote:

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads
to High Court
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, 2 May, 2013, 12:34



Hi, Pamela -

Admittedly, I am sticking my oar in where I have no business, which I admit.

However, I guess I have a right to a point of view . . . and it is this, in

brief.

I first became aware of all the recent developments as a result of the press

conference they held on Sept. 12 last year. Since then I have followed all

developments with rapt interest. What I saw at the time was a partnership

between the RIII Society (especially "Society ramrod" Philippa Langley :-) )

and the various Leicester-based groups (especially the University, the

archeological team, and the town) to fund and spur the search for Richard.

York was nowhere in evidence, nor to the best of my knowledge, have any of

those "collateral descendants," been in evidence for the last 500+ years.

During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond

regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for

showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III

School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded

by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).

Not a peep from anyone at York.

Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to

commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own

initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.

Those members of the Society who approached Leicester Cathedral in 2010 have "come into it", though. Personally, I feel no approach to Leicester Cathedral (or any location at all!) should have been made until the remains were confirmed. In any archaeological dig, you have to state a possible burial place, and it is usual to put the nearest church but as a matter of form, not as a matter of "necessity" - that is why the third option on the licence of "a burial ground in which interments may legally take place" is always given. Any licence given will give the option to bury elsewhere in consecrated ground. The licence to exhume the remains already known to be on the site should by rights state Leicester Cathedral as the nearest church again, but I bet they won't be re-interred there - Sir William Moton and "Ellen Luenor" (if these are they). Nor will all the plague remains found recently in the City of London be re-interred in the nearest London churchyard.

York Minster would not "come forward" initially, I feel, because its new Dean was Dean of Leicester until Dec last year and was involved in all the pre-dig agreements at Leicester. York Minster's current statement (given 11th March)re being willing to receive the remains if asked, is - "The Chapter of York has maintained a neutral position regarding Richard III's re-interment, based on the current legal position."

If the remains were to come to York, I think they would be more than willing to receive them. I understand this to be the case from folk who have talked with people at the Minster. What they can't be seen to be doing is "wrangling" over who should have him, hence the 'neutral' statement until the matter is resolved.

I do agree that it's not what the citizens of any city wish, nor the Society in itself - though I do think the Society *as a whole* should be consulted (its membership) and have a recommending voice in the matter.

Col

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Has York, and when I say York I mean York Minster not the citizens of York, ever offered or requested that Richard be buried there....I cannot for the life of me ever recall them putting forward a request or argument in this respect. I agree 100% with what Marie is saying...As far as I can tell York Minster don't want Richard anyway....what the citizens of York or Leicester or the Society want does not come into it...that's the truth of. eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, didn't York withdraw their offer? There's no point in demanding that we be allowed to bury him there if the authorities have not first been persuaded to accept him.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The " descendants" might be dubious but I still have beef with the Leicester Cathedral about " honorable-dishonorable act" ! And throwing out the table tomb out of the window. If they are not bothered about his dignity why should we support this particular place? If York gives him a burial fit for a king, I will go with them. And every time there is a mention of " tourist money" I cringe. That should not be a factor in this. The factor should be proper respect for his remains and not sudden volte faces! ( end of rant)
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On May 2, 2013, at 12:23 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip] During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).
> > > > > Not a peep from anyone at York.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
> > > > > commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, to the best of my knowledge, when Richard made the appeal for troops to help defend his Crown before Bosworth, the town fathers (like town fathers everywhere) dillied and dallied and never did send any troops. [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with most of your post though I would mention the moving tribute to Richard in the York Civic Records when they received the terrible news that "King Richard, late mercifully reigning upon us" had been "piteously slain and murdered" in battle, a very fitting tribute despite York's confusion regarding the identity of the traitors (quoted from memory in modern English so it may not be exact). If I recall correctly, York, which had been ravaged by plague, sent about eighty men. Two, John Sponer or Spooner, Sergeant of the Mace (whatever that is) and John Nicholson, a messenger, rode ahead to meet with Richard at Nottingham. According to Kendall, the city had received word that the enemy had landed but no instructions from Northumberland, who was in charge of recruiting in the North. Not knowing what to do, they sent Sponer and Northumberland to Richard in Beskwood Lodge to "understand {Richard's pleasure in sending up any of his subjects within this city to his said grace for the subduing of his enemies late arrived in . . . Wales." Meanwhile, the council sent to any aldermen not ill with the plague for their advice and ordered all men in the city to "be ready in their most defensible array to attend upon the mayor" while they waited for word from Richard.
> > > >
> > > > John Sponer chose to remain and fight for Richard (he later delivered the bad news to York); Nicholson returned with the message that Richard needed their help. York immediately sent "four score men . . . defensibly arrayed . . . should in all haste possible" go to the aid of the king.
> > > >
> > > > We can only assume that had it not been for the plague and for Northumberland's not sending instructions to York that they would have sent a much larger contingent much earlier. As it was, they arrived too late to participate in the battle because, for whatever reason, Richard chose not to wait.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't blame York in Richard's day. The city was definitely loyal to and grateful to Richard. Even Francis Bacon, and admirer of Henry Tudor, wrote that in his day the memory of Richard III still "lay like lees in the bottom of men's hearts, and if the vessel was but stirred, it would come up."
> > > >
> > > > But it's certainly true that the "descendants" are stating Richard's supposed wishes on insufficient evidence. It seems that, whatever plans he had for his interrment as Duke of Gloucester changed when he became king. Most likely, he would have preferred to be buried either beside Anne at Westminster or beside Edward at Windsor. (He may have set aside a spot there near the one he chose for Henry VI. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read that except that it was online.)
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Well said Liz.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I totally agree Johanne.  I don't mind so much "where" he is as long as it's fitting.  I prefer the idea of Leicester because it will be "his" not shared with lots of other people and frankly i think he deserves that.
>  
> As for Vanessa Roe, " his family was going to be buried in York itself" she doesn't know what she's talking about unless of course teh "descendants" have lots of original documents no one knows about.
>  
> Liz
>  
>
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013, 12:34
> Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
>
>  
> Hi, Pamela -
> Admittedly, I am sticking my oar in where I have no business, which I admit.
> However, I guess I have a right to a point of view . . . and it is this, in
> brief.
>
> I first became aware of all the recent developments as a result of the press
> conference they held on Sept. 12 last year. Since then I have followed all
> developments with rapt interest. What I saw at the time was a partnership
> between the RIII Society (especially "Society ramrod" Philippa Langley :-) )
> and the various Leicester-based groups (especially the University, the
> archeological team, and the town) to fund and spur the search for Richard.
> York was nowhere in evidence, nor to the best of my knowledge, have any of
> those "collateral descendants," been in evidence for the last 500+ years.
>
> During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond
> regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for
> showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III
> School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded
> by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).
> Not a peep from anyone at York.
>
> Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
> commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own
> initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.
>
> Also, to the best of my knowledge, when Richard made the appeal for troops
> to help defend his Crown before Bosworth, the town fathers (like town
> fathers everywhere) dillied and dallied and never did send any troops. I
> suppose one might argue that, like a lot of other "what ifs" about Bosworth,
> if the town had gotten troops to Richard it might have made the difference.
>
> Lastly, my understanding is that York has a lot of other irons in the fire.
> They do the "Viking thing" every year. The substantial York Minster charges
> an equally-substantial entry fee for admission. In my view, they don't
> "need" Richard as much as Leicester does - and consequently, Richard may end
> up being given short shrift. I don't think that there is any guarantee, if
> York were granted the right of interment, as to the style of the memorial
> that they would propose. It's pretty much a "pig in a poke," you might say.
> A number of people have posted of visits they have made to Leicester in the
> past 8 months or so, and they have concluded that it will be a wonderful
> spot for pilgrimage and contemplation of Richard's life. (I suppose the
> Cathedral may end up upping their entry fees, too. Oh, well, some things are
> beyond our control.)
>
> There's my four farthings! :-)
>
> Johanne
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com
> or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
> - Jesus of Nazareth
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:57 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
> to High Court
>
> Even kings don't always, at 32, think they might die. I think he expected to
> win his last battle, and had he lived he would probably have made his wishes
> clear. There is just so much we do not know. I am not joining the fray, but
> I did do questions the "family" *knowing* he wanted to be buried in York.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Christine Holmes wrote:
//snip//
"It is my belief that as with Richard and Edward's father and brother who
were moved from Pontefract to Fotheringhay,..."
//snip//

Doug here:
Perhaps that sentence answers our questions about where Richard planned to
be buried - at Fotheringhay, where he'd already re-interred his father and
brother. His brother Edward seems to have chosen Windsor for *his* family,
so why shouldn't Richard have chosen Fotheringhay for his? Pity Fotheringhay
is now in ruins, it would, to me at least, be both very appropriate *and*
solve a lot of problems..
While I do agree with colynbourne about the process being flawed (and wonder
why the national government hasn't gotten more directly involved), I think
any bureaucratic "mistakes" that may have been made were due simply to the
sheer odds *against* Richard remains actually being discovered and time
constraints which the dig operated under and the probable lack of any simple
measures available to change the terms of the license.
Although PL and JAH may have been certain Richard was there, it appears
neither the Ministry of Justice nor the UoL really did. Nor can I really
blame those at the MoJ and UoL either, as the discovery *did* come as a
surprise to all the professional archeologists involved! Faced with
something unexpected, however, both entities fell back on the strict letter
of the law - which, in accordance with the license and lacking any actual
close relatives or any definite knowledge of the deceased wishes, requires
re-interrment in the nearest suitable consecrated ground - in this case
Leicester Cathedral.
If Richard isn't to be re-buried where he *might* have intended to be (which
appears to be Fotheringhay), I personally am quite happy to see him
re-interred at Leicester Cathedral, as long as his tomb is approriate.
Personally, I'd like to see a grassy cloistered area with a table-top tomb
in the center, but I have no idea of either the cost or whether it's even
physically possible. If, for *any* reason, Leicester can't re-interr Richard
properly, then he should be re-buried elsewhere. Which will probably open
yet another "can of worms"!
I was going to hit "send" when a thought occurred. After all, as parking
*is* a major consideration nowadays, could a (the?) reason Leicester
Cathedral might seem to be hesitatant is because the *only* way they can
provide space for a proper tomb for Richard, and not just an up-dated slab
marker, is because it would require the Cathedral to reduce the amount of
available parking for worshippers/events attendees? If so, the irony!
Doug

wednesday_mc

"Here Lies Our Tourist Attraction vs. Here Lies Our King Of England..."
//snip//

Don't DO that when I'm drinking my coffee!
Doug

"in the case of human remains which are excavated in a dig, the approved practice is re-interment in the nearest consecrated ground."

In the case of unknown remains, yes - but even this is not necessarily the case - eg the plague victims in London will not necessarily be laid to rest in the nearest burial ground; the medieval plague remains discovered in Hereford Cathedral grounds in the 1990's were not re-interred within the cathedral grounds; the situation with a "named individual" is very different, and procedure wasn't followed. No publicly accountable process at all seems to have been followed in the whole affair, as far as I can see.

Leicester politicians may well have said "possessive" things about the remains, and their "use" in the City of Culture bid and in tourism, but Richard Buckley also apparently stated in an interview in late March "He's our King in our City". Erm, no - he's a King of England that Leicester happens to have virtually privatised to the exclusion of the rest of the country.

Sorry but I find the description of "Yorkshire worthies" as rather patronising. Leicester were not going to do this dig - ever - if it hadn't been for the money and persistence of PL and JAH (and Leicester Council working out that they could make some money from it). So there are no Leicester worthies either. And archaeology depts. do not generally dig up burial grounds just to find where an individual might be buried: Edward of Middleham is very likely either in Sheriff Hutton or York Minster or Coverham Abbey - so how exactly and more importantly *why* anyone was meant to be hunting for him, I don't know.

Richard called York his "home-coming" - how can that be anything but indicative of it being the place where he should now be laid to rest? And unfortunately yes, the north-south divide still exists (and in this day and age grows stronger) and Richard, to my mind, belongs utterly in the north - not in the centre of England, and not in the town near where he died and where his despoiled body was put on display. Not Leicester's fault, I know, but still the place where it happened. His life was elsewhere - not in that town (as it was then) - and his memorial should speak of his life.

I'll go back to lurking for a bit because I find the whole thing very depressing.

Col

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Janet -
>
> You're right, to the best of my knowledge, the statue of Richard at
> Leicester, as well as the memorial slab, and the plaque at the Bow Bridge
> (?) were provided by the RIII Society. If there was any indication otherwise
> in what I wrote it was strictly unintentional. I believe in trying to keep
> the arguments on both sides as factual as possible. Otherwise, all we're
> doing is "fuzzifying the muddification," as Allan Fotheringham used to say.
> J But, nevertheless, Leicester does have King Richard's Road (the road on
> which he was brought back to Leicester, probably the same that he rode out
> on to battle) and the King Richard III School. There may be other
> remembrances as well that I am not aware of, not being either a Leicester
> or a UK resident, unfortunately as far as I am concerned. I think the fact
> that Leicester is smaller (including the Cathedral) and is not the burial
> site of any other kings is a plus for everyone, including celebrating
> Richard's memory into the future.
>
>
>
> I have followed developments closely, as I mentioned. I have heard Richard
> Buckley, head of the archeological team, speak about their involvement in
> the search, and have read his statements in recorded interviews. It was not
> that they were "reluctant" to get involved with the search for Richard, but
> that they felt it was an approximately million-to-one shot that they would
> find him. Many times he said, in historical archeology, you don't go looking
> for a named individual, and find him. So his justification for the search
> was to find out more about the Greyfriars, which was a search that was
> likely to be successful. That doesn't mean they were reluctant to go
> looking, probably it means that if they had to present the University's and
> ULAS's case for the dig, they had to justify it primarily in terms of the
> search to uncover an important part of Leicester's past, not primarily as a
> search for Richard, unlike PL and of course the Society. J
>
>
>
> Anyway, although the Town may be thinking of the RIII Trail and such things
> as money-makers, the fact is that they are creating memorials, for which
> they are spending the money, which are designed to be attractive as well as
> educational. Some of the Town worthies certainly have spoken a bit
> in-elegantly or crassly, but, hey, they are politicians, we can hardly
> expect otherwise, upon occasion. It may be that Leicester, like the rest of
> the UK, has been in a bit of a financial crisis, and you can't blame them
> for seizing upon the amazing degree of interest worldwide in Richard as a
> potential financial windfall. If it is done tastefully, I have no problem
> with that, and I don't mind contributing my $$$$, as far as I am able.
>
>
>
> As I wrote earlier, what has my nose out of joint is the proposal to put
> King Richard under a slab. Bah, humbug, I say! Now, the fact is that there
> have been discussions all along about what would happen if Richard was
> found. Some of the parties may have thought this to be a hypothetical
> exercise, but the RIII Society did run the tomb design by the parties at the
> Cathedral, and there was approval, prior to the discovery of the remains. I
> think it is very possible that all this was part of the process of inducing
> agreement to the dig. That is, perhaps RIII Society indicated that it would
> be agreeable, yes, if RIII were found, that he would be reinterred close by.
> I would make it clear, I am speculating about that, but also, it was made
> clear in previous press releases, articles and such, that in the case of
> human remains which are excavated in a dig, the approved practice is
> reinterment in the nearest consecrated ground. They indicated that this is
> what has been decided in the case of Richard. I think it is a different
> thing to propose reburying him within the UK. I mean, it's not like his body
> is lying somewhere halfway around the world or anything. Leicester is the
> approximate center of Richard's kingdom, an area he knew well; he had been
> there on occasions prior to 1485. It is also *not* the "South" of England,
> though personally I have nothing against the South - but I understand that
> the Midlands is indeed a sort of a mediator between South and North of
> England linguistically as well as geographically. Richard was born and
> raised at Fotheringhay, then at Ludlow, then abroad, then at London, and
> only later did he go to Yorkshire, to live and train under Warwick at
> Middleham. However, to the best of my knowledge, he never lived at York.
> Yes, Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales there, but he was
> buried elsewhere. (Speaking of which, did the Yorkshire worthies carefully
> tend and preserve EoM's grave?)
>
>
>
> As I was getting to, I personally have my nose out of joint because of the
> recent thing from the Interim Dean at Leicester about Richard's honourable
> and dishonourable characteristics, and the slab thing. So, I think it is
> natural for people like me to react emotionally and to then question the
> whole process of the approval. But, the fact is that the remains were not
> identified when the license to exhume was applied for, the fact is that they
> only applied for the license because at that point they figured it was
> Richard. Yes, perhaps the process is flawed. But I'm not sure that it is
> invalid, no matter what our gripes. Frankly, however, I am personally
> prepared to boycott the Cathedral and perhaps Leicester as a whole if
> Richard is not accorded a proper tomb and other dignity that he deserves.
> And I would be prepared to support a cenotaph at York or elsewhere which
> would be a monument such as Richard richly deserves.
>
>
>
> (There are probably more thoughts of this which escape me for the time
> being. J)
>
>
>
> 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 Janet Ashton
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:05 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads
> to High Court
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Johanne, I had the impression that the statue to Richard in
> Leicester was funded by the Richard III Society rather than by the City of
> Leicester. Richard was not killed and buried in York, so it was not an
> obvious place for a memorial, and yet there is a museum there to him - which
> I'd say is good evidence that someone cares. Plus the evidence which Carol
> quoted. And yes - pubs. And then there's the rest of the county, and
> surrounding area, evoking Richard in lots of ways from the genuine to the
> apocryphal. People I know who live in York and are interested in him have
> been surprised and hurt to read all over the internet that "they had never
> shown an interest until now".
> From what I can see, the dig to find Richard's bones was carried out at the
> instigation of the Richard III Society with the involvement - reluctant at
> first - of the University of Leicester and Leceister Council, who happened
> to be on the scene. I don't know if anyone else who happened not to be local
> was asked to be involved, but the funds which did this work do not come from
> the people of Leicester - they are national funds; even city councils are
> funded by central government to the best of my knowledge. Once the bones
> were found, other national bodies were involved, including the Royal
> Armouries Museum. I don't think anywhere should be able to claim that it has
> "bought" someone's bones; and even it could I don't see any argument that
> Leicester has done so.
> It looks as if the relationship between the Society and Leicester University
> has gone very sour, with the Society being more or less sidelined as the
> University takes credit for the project. Really - I can't see this as some
> happy party which York has rudely gate-crashed without bringing a bottle!
> :-)
>
> --- On Thu, 2/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
> <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > wrote:
>
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
> <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
> Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads
> to High Court
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thursday, 2 May, 2013, 12:34
>
>
>
> Hi, Pamela -
>
> Admittedly, I am sticking my oar in where I have no business, which I admit.
>
> However, I guess I have a right to a point of view . . . and it is this, in
>
> brief.
>
> I first became aware of all the recent developments as a result of the press
>
> conference they held on Sept. 12 last year. Since then I have followed all
>
> developments with rapt interest. What I saw at the time was a partnership
>
> between the RIII Society (especially "Society ramrod" Philippa Langley :-) )
>
> and the various Leicester-based groups (especially the University, the
>
> archeological team, and the town) to fund and spur the search for Richard.
>
> York was nowhere in evidence, nor to the best of my knowledge, have any of
>
> those "collateral descendants," been in evidence for the last 500+ years.
>
> During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond
>
> regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for
>
> showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III
>
> School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded
>
> by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).
>
> Not a peep from anyone at York.
>
> Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
>
> commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own
>
> initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Col..please do not get depressed...I have long admired your tenacity regarding King Richard's final burial place. I see in one of your messages you wrote you have friends overseas who are 'staggered how appallingly this has been handled in this county that prides itself on its historical heritage and monarchy and that the government and crown have washed their hands of the business'..every word of which I agree with....Its absolutely shameful and a scandal.

At the end of the day, whatever the outcome, your loyalty to King Richard must be commended....just wanted to say...Eileen

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> "in the case of human remains which are excavated in a dig, the approved practice is re-interment in the nearest consecrated ground."
>
> In the case of unknown remains, yes - but even this is not necessarily the case - eg the plague victims in London will not necessarily be laid to rest in the nearest burial ground; the medieval plague remains discovered in Hereford Cathedral grounds in the 1990's were not re-interred within the cathedral grounds; the situation with a "named individual" is very different, and procedure wasn't followed. No publicly accountable process at all seems to have been followed in the whole affair, as far as I can see.
>
> Leicester politicians may well have said "possessive" things about the remains, and their "use" in the City of Culture bid and in tourism, but Richard Buckley also apparently stated in an interview in late March "He's our King in our City". Erm, no - he's a King of England that Leicester happens to have virtually privatised to the exclusion of the rest of the country.
>
> Sorry but I find the description of "Yorkshire worthies" as rather patronising. Leicester were not going to do this dig - ever - if it hadn't been for the money and persistence of PL and JAH (and Leicester Council working out that they could make some money from it). So there are no Leicester worthies either. And archaeology depts. do not generally dig up burial grounds just to find where an individual might be buried: Edward of Middleham is very likely either in Sheriff Hutton or York Minster or Coverham Abbey - so how exactly and more importantly *why* anyone was meant to be hunting for him, I don't know.
>
> Richard called York his "home-coming" - how can that be anything but indicative of it being the place where he should now be laid to rest? And unfortunately yes, the north-south divide still exists (and in this day and age grows stronger) and Richard, to my mind, belongs utterly in the north - not in the centre of England, and not in the town near where he died and where his despoiled body was put on display. Not Leicester's fault, I know, but still the place where it happened. His life was elsewhere - not in that town (as it was then) - and his memorial should speak of his life.
>
> I'll go back to lurking for a bit because I find the whole thing very depressing.
>
> Col
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Janet -
> >
> > You're right, to the best of my knowledge, the statue of Richard at
> > Leicester, as well as the memorial slab, and the plaque at the Bow Bridge
> > (?) were provided by the RIII Society. If there was any indication otherwise
> > in what I wrote it was strictly unintentional. I believe in trying to keep
> > the arguments on both sides as factual as possible. Otherwise, all we're
> > doing is "fuzzifying the muddification," as Allan Fotheringham used to say.
> > J But, nevertheless, Leicester does have King Richard's Road (the road on
> > which he was brought back to Leicester, probably the same that he rode out
> > on to battle) and the King Richard III School. There may be other
> > remembrances as well that I am not aware of, not being either a Leicester
> > or a UK resident, unfortunately as far as I am concerned. I think the fact
> > that Leicester is smaller (including the Cathedral) and is not the burial
> > site of any other kings is a plus for everyone, including celebrating
> > Richard's memory into the future.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have followed developments closely, as I mentioned. I have heard Richard
> > Buckley, head of the archeological team, speak about their involvement in
> > the search, and have read his statements in recorded interviews. It was not
> > that they were "reluctant" to get involved with the search for Richard, but
> > that they felt it was an approximately million-to-one shot that they would
> > find him. Many times he said, in historical archeology, you don't go looking
> > for a named individual, and find him. So his justification for the search
> > was to find out more about the Greyfriars, which was a search that was
> > likely to be successful. That doesn't mean they were reluctant to go
> > looking, probably it means that if they had to present the University's and
> > ULAS's case for the dig, they had to justify it primarily in terms of the
> > search to uncover an important part of Leicester's past, not primarily as a
> > search for Richard, unlike PL and of course the Society. J
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyway, although the Town may be thinking of the RIII Trail and such things
> > as money-makers, the fact is that they are creating memorials, for which
> > they are spending the money, which are designed to be attractive as well as
> > educational. Some of the Town worthies certainly have spoken a bit
> > in-elegantly or crassly, but, hey, they are politicians, we can hardly
> > expect otherwise, upon occasion. It may be that Leicester, like the rest of
> > the UK, has been in a bit of a financial crisis, and you can't blame them
> > for seizing upon the amazing degree of interest worldwide in Richard as a
> > potential financial windfall. If it is done tastefully, I have no problem
> > with that, and I don't mind contributing my $$$$, as far as I am able.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I wrote earlier, what has my nose out of joint is the proposal to put
> > King Richard under a slab. Bah, humbug, I say! Now, the fact is that there
> > have been discussions all along about what would happen if Richard was
> > found. Some of the parties may have thought this to be a hypothetical
> > exercise, but the RIII Society did run the tomb design by the parties at the
> > Cathedral, and there was approval, prior to the discovery of the remains. I
> > think it is very possible that all this was part of the process of inducing
> > agreement to the dig. That is, perhaps RIII Society indicated that it would
> > be agreeable, yes, if RIII were found, that he would be reinterred close by.
> > I would make it clear, I am speculating about that, but also, it was made
> > clear in previous press releases, articles and such, that in the case of
> > human remains which are excavated in a dig, the approved practice is
> > reinterment in the nearest consecrated ground. They indicated that this is
> > what has been decided in the case of Richard. I think it is a different
> > thing to propose reburying him within the UK. I mean, it's not like his body
> > is lying somewhere halfway around the world or anything. Leicester is the
> > approximate center of Richard's kingdom, an area he knew well; he had been
> > there on occasions prior to 1485. It is also *not* the "South" of England,
> > though personally I have nothing against the South - but I understand that
> > the Midlands is indeed a sort of a mediator between South and North of
> > England linguistically as well as geographically. Richard was born and
> > raised at Fotheringhay, then at Ludlow, then abroad, then at London, and
> > only later did he go to Yorkshire, to live and train under Warwick at
> > Middleham. However, to the best of my knowledge, he never lived at York.
> > Yes, Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales there, but he was
> > buried elsewhere. (Speaking of which, did the Yorkshire worthies carefully
> > tend and preserve EoM's grave?)
> >
> >
> >
> > As I was getting to, I personally have my nose out of joint because of the
> > recent thing from the Interim Dean at Leicester about Richard's honourable
> > and dishonourable characteristics, and the slab thing. So, I think it is
> > natural for people like me to react emotionally and to then question the
> > whole process of the approval. But, the fact is that the remains were not
> > identified when the license to exhume was applied for, the fact is that they
> > only applied for the license because at that point they figured it was
> > Richard. Yes, perhaps the process is flawed. But I'm not sure that it is
> > invalid, no matter what our gripes. Frankly, however, I am personally
> > prepared to boycott the Cathedral and perhaps Leicester as a whole if
> > Richard is not accorded a proper tomb and other dignity that he deserves.
> > And I would be prepared to support a cenotaph at York or elsewhere which
> > would be a monument such as Richard richly deserves.
> >
> >
> >
> > (There are probably more thoughts of this which escape me for the time
> > being. J)
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 Janet Ashton
> > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:05 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads
> > to High Court
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Johanne, I had the impression that the statue to Richard in
> > Leicester was funded by the Richard III Society rather than by the City of
> > Leicester. Richard was not killed and buried in York, so it was not an
> > obvious place for a memorial, and yet there is a museum there to him - which
> > I'd say is good evidence that someone cares. Plus the evidence which Carol
> > quoted. And yes - pubs. And then there's the rest of the county, and
> > surrounding area, evoking Richard in lots of ways from the genuine to the
> > apocryphal. People I know who live in York and are interested in him have
> > been surprised and hurt to read all over the internet that "they had never
> > shown an interest until now".
> > From what I can see, the dig to find Richard's bones was carried out at the
> > instigation of the Richard III Society with the involvement - reluctant at
> > first - of the University of Leicester and Leceister Council, who happened
> > to be on the scene. I don't know if anyone else who happened not to be local
> > was asked to be involved, but the funds which did this work do not come from
> > the people of Leicester - they are national funds; even city councils are
> > funded by central government to the best of my knowledge. Once the bones
> > were found, other national bodies were involved, including the Royal
> > Armouries Museum. I don't think anywhere should be able to claim that it has
> > "bought" someone's bones; and even it could I don't see any argument that
> > Leicester has done so.
> > It looks as if the relationship between the Society and Leicester University
> > has gone very sour, with the Society being more or less sidelined as the
> > University takes credit for the project. Really - I can't see this as some
> > happy party which York has rudely gate-crashed without bringing a bottle!
> > :-)
> >
> > --- On Thu, 2/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@
> > <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > wrote:
> >
> > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@
> > <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
> > Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads
> > to High Court
> > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thursday, 2 May, 2013, 12:34
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi, Pamela -
> >
> > Admittedly, I am sticking my oar in where I have no business, which I admit.
> >
> > However, I guess I have a right to a point of view . . . and it is this, in
> >
> > brief.
> >
> > I first became aware of all the recent developments as a result of the press
> >
> > conference they held on Sept. 12 last year. Since then I have followed all
> >
> > developments with rapt interest. What I saw at the time was a partnership
> >
> > between the RIII Society (especially "Society ramrod" Philippa Langley :-) )
> >
> > and the various Leicester-based groups (especially the University, the
> >
> > archeological team, and the town) to fund and spur the search for Richard.
> >
> > York was nowhere in evidence, nor to the best of my knowledge, have any of
> >
> > those "collateral descendants," been in evidence for the last 500+ years.
> >
> > During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond
> >
> > regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for
> >
> > showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III
> >
> > School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded
> >
> > by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).
> >
> > Not a peep from anyone at York.
> >
> > Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
> >
> > commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own
> >
> > initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Well, don't stay away too long - I have been glad to see your eloquent
posts since they reflect what I would say if I were as much master of the
measured word. I think that this whole re-interment business is a such a
sore spot for some of us because it represents one more way in which the
establishment declines to give Richard the due respect we feel he is owed.

And I too will be torn, if I ever find my way to England again, between my
desire to pay my respects to Richard & my dislike of the actions to date of
those in charge at Leicester "cathedral."

Same old, same old...

A J



On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:16 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> "in the case of human remains which are excavated in a dig, the approved
> practice is re-interment in the nearest consecrated ground."
>
> In the case of unknown remains, yes - but even this is not necessarily the
> case - eg the plague victims in London will not necessarily be laid to rest
> in the nearest burial ground; the medieval plague remains discovered in
> Hereford Cathedral grounds in the 1990's were not re-interred within the
> cathedral grounds; the situation with a "named individual" is very
> different, and procedure wasn't followed. No publicly accountable process
> at all seems to have been followed in the whole affair, as far as I can see.
>
> Leicester politicians may well have said "possessive" things about the
> remains, and their "use" in the City of Culture bid and in tourism, but
> Richard Buckley also apparently stated in an interview in late March "He's
> our King in our City". Erm, no - he's a King of England that Leicester
> happens to have virtually privatised to the exclusion of the rest of the
> country.
>
> Sorry but I find the description of "Yorkshire worthies" as rather
> patronising. Leicester were not going to do this dig - ever - if it hadn't
> been for the money and persistence of PL and JAH (and Leicester Council
> working out that they could make some money from it). So there are no
> Leicester worthies either. And archaeology depts. do not generally dig up
> burial grounds just to find where an individual might be buried: Edward of
> Middleham is very likely either in Sheriff Hutton or York Minster or
> Coverham Abbey - so how exactly and more importantly *why* anyone was meant
> to be hunting for him, I don't know.
>
> Richard called York his "home-coming" - how can that be anything but
> indicative of it being the place where he should now be laid to rest? And
> unfortunately yes, the north-south divide still exists (and in this day and
> age grows stronger) and Richard, to my mind, belongs utterly in the north -
> not in the centre of England, and not in the town near where he died and
> where his despoiled body was put on display. Not Leicester's fault, I know,
> but still the place where it happened. His life was elsewhere - not in that
> town (as it was then) - and his memorial should speak of his life.
>
> I'll go back to lurking for a bit because I find the whole thing very
> depressing.
>
> Col
>
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Janet -
> >
> > You're right, to the best of my knowledge, the statue of Richard at
> > Leicester, as well as the memorial slab, and the plaque at the Bow Bridge
> > (?) were provided by the RIII Society. If there was any indication
> otherwise
> > in what I wrote it was strictly unintentional. I believe in trying to
> keep
> > the arguments on both sides as factual as possible. Otherwise, all we're
> > doing is "fuzzifying the muddification," as Allan Fotheringham used to
> say.
> > J But, nevertheless, Leicester does have King Richard's Road (the road on
> > which he was brought back to Leicester, probably the same that he rode
> out
> > on to battle) and the King Richard III School. There may be other
> > remembrances as well that I am not aware of, not being either a Leicester
> > or a UK resident, unfortunately as far as I am concerned. I think the
> fact
> > that Leicester is smaller (including the Cathedral) and is not the burial
> > site of any other kings is a plus for everyone, including celebrating
> > Richard's memory into the future.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have followed developments closely, as I mentioned. I have heard
> Richard
> > Buckley, head of the archeological team, speak about their involvement in
> > the search, and have read his statements in recorded interviews. It was
> not
> > that they were "reluctant" to get involved with the search for Richard,
> but
> > that they felt it was an approximately million-to-one shot that they
> would
> > find him. Many times he said, in historical archeology, you don't go
> looking
> > for a named individual, and find him. So his justification for the search
> > was to find out more about the Greyfriars, which was a search that was
> > likely to be successful. That doesn't mean they were reluctant to go
> > looking, probably it means that if they had to present the University's
> and
> > ULAS's case for the dig, they had to justify it primarily in terms of the
> > search to uncover an important part of Leicester's past, not primarily
> as a
> > search for Richard, unlike PL and of course the Society. J
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyway, although the Town may be thinking of the RIII Trail and such
> things
> > as money-makers, the fact is that they are creating memorials, for which
> > they are spending the money, which are designed to be attractive as well
> as
> > educational. Some of the Town worthies certainly have spoken a bit
> > in-elegantly or crassly, but, hey, they are politicians, we can hardly
> > expect otherwise, upon occasion. It may be that Leicester, like the rest
> of
> > the UK, has been in a bit of a financial crisis, and you can't blame them
> > for seizing upon the amazing degree of interest worldwide in Richard as a
> > potential financial windfall. If it is done tastefully, I have no problem
> > with that, and I don't mind contributing my $$$$, as far as I am able.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I wrote earlier, what has my nose out of joint is the proposal to put
> > King Richard under a slab. Bah, humbug, I say! Now, the fact is that
> there
> > have been discussions all along about what would happen if Richard was
> > found. Some of the parties may have thought this to be a hypothetical
> > exercise, but the RIII Society did run the tomb design by the parties at
> the
> > Cathedral, and there was approval, prior to the discovery of the
> remains. I
> > think it is very possible that all this was part of the process of
> inducing
> > agreement to the dig. That is, perhaps RIII Society indicated that it
> would
> > be agreeable, yes, if RIII were found, that he would be reinterred close
> by.
> > I would make it clear, I am speculating about that, but also, it was made
> > clear in previous press releases, articles and such, that in the case of
> > human remains which are excavated in a dig, the approved practice is
> > reinterment in the nearest consecrated ground. They indicated that this
> is
> > what has been decided in the case of Richard. I think it is a different
> > thing to propose reburying him within the UK. I mean, it's not like his
> body
> > is lying somewhere halfway around the world or anything. Leicester is the
> > approximate center of Richard's kingdom, an area he knew well; he had
> been
> > there on occasions prior to 1485. It is also *not* the "South" of
> England,
> > though personally I have nothing against the South - but I understand
> that
> > the Midlands is indeed a sort of a mediator between South and North of
> > England linguistically as well as geographically. Richard was born and
> > raised at Fotheringhay, then at Ludlow, then abroad, then at London, and
> > only later did he go to Yorkshire, to live and train under Warwick at
> > Middleham. However, to the best of my knowledge, he never lived at York.
> > Yes, Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales there, but he
> was
> > buried elsewhere. (Speaking of which, did the Yorkshire worthies
> carefully
> > tend and preserve EoM's grave?)
> >
> >
> >
> > As I was getting to, I personally have my nose out of joint because of
> the
> > recent thing from the Interim Dean at Leicester about Richard's
> honourable
> > and dishonourable characteristics, and the slab thing. So, I think it is
> > natural for people like me to react emotionally and to then question the
> > whole process of the approval. But, the fact is that the remains were not
> > identified when the license to exhume was applied for, the fact is that
> they
> > only applied for the license because at that point they figured it was
> > Richard. Yes, perhaps the process is flawed. But I'm not sure that it is
> > invalid, no matter what our gripes. Frankly, however, I am personally
> > prepared to boycott the Cathedral and perhaps Leicester as a whole if
> > Richard is not accorded a proper tomb and other dignity that he deserves.
> > And I would be prepared to support a cenotaph at York or elsewhere which
> > would be a monument such as Richard richly deserves.
> >
> >
> >
> > (There are probably more thoughts of this which escape me for the time
> > being. J)
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 Janet
> Ashton
> > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:05 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row
> heads
> > to High Court
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Johanne, I had the impression that the statue to Richard in
> > Leicester was funded by the Richard III Society rather than by the City
> of
> > Leicester. Richard was not killed and buried in York, so it was not an
> > obvious place for a memorial, and yet there is a museum there to him -
> which
> > I'd say is good evidence that someone cares. Plus the evidence which
> Carol
> > quoted. And yes - pubs. And then there's the rest of the county, and
> > surrounding area, evoking Richard in lots of ways from the genuine to the
> > apocryphal. People I know who live in York and are interested in him have
> > been surprised and hurt to read all over the internet that "they had
> never
> > shown an interest until now".
> > From what I can see, the dig to find Richard's bones was carried out at
> the
> > instigation of the Richard III Society with the involvement - reluctant
> at
> > first - of the University of Leicester and Leceister Council, who
> happened
> > to be on the scene. I don't know if anyone else who happened not to be
> local
> > was asked to be involved, but the funds which did this work do not come
> from
> > the people of Leicester - they are national funds; even city councils are
> > funded by central government to the best of my knowledge. Once the bones
> > were found, other national bodies were involved, including the Royal
> > Armouries Museum. I don't think anywhere should be able to claim that it
> has
> > "bought" someone's bones; and even it could I don't see any argument that
> > Leicester has done so.
> > It looks as if the relationship between the Society and Leicester
> University
> > has gone very sour, with the Society being more or less sidelined as the
> > University takes credit for the project. Really - I can't see this as
> some
> > happy party which York has rudely gate-crashed without bringing a bottle!
> > :-)
> >
> > --- On Thu, 2/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
> > <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > wrote:
> >
> > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
>
> > <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
> > Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row
> heads
> > to High Court
> > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thursday, 2 May, 2013, 12:34
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi, Pamela -
> >
> > Admittedly, I am sticking my oar in where I have no business, which I
> admit.
> >
> > However, I guess I have a right to a point of view . . . and it is this,
> in
> >
> > brief.
> >
> > I first became aware of all the recent developments as a result of the
> press
> >
> > conference they held on Sept. 12 last year. Since then I have followed
> all
> >
> > developments with rapt interest. What I saw at the time was a partnership
> >
> > between the RIII Society (especially "Society ramrod" Philippa Langley
> :-) )
> >
> > and the various Leicester-based groups (especially the University, the
> >
> > archeological team, and the town) to fund and spur the search for
> Richard.
> >
> > York was nowhere in evidence, nor to the best of my knowledge, have any
> of
> >
> > those "collateral descendants," been in evidence for the last 500+
> years.
> >
> > During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather
> fond
> >
> > regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for
> >
> > showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III
> >
> > School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb
> funded
> >
> > by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name
> Robert?).
> >
> > Not a peep from anyone at York.
> >
> > Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
> >
> > commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own
> >
> > initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Hi, Douglas, the church at Fotheringhay is not in ruin, it holds the tombs of Richard's father, mother and brother Edmund, also a previous member of the family. It is a lovely church and would be an appropriate place as it is the House of York family mausoleum, it would certainly be better than Leicester which has no connection with Richard other than his death near bye.
I would like it to be York but would have no problems if Fotheringhay were chosen.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Christine Holmes wrote:
> //snip//
> "It is my belief that as with Richard and Edward's father and brother who
> were moved from Pontefract to Fotheringhay,..."
> //snip//
>
> Doug here:
> Perhaps that sentence answers our questions about where Richard planned to
> be buried - at Fotheringhay, where he'd already re-interred his father and
> brother. His brother Edward seems to have chosen Windsor for *his* family,
> so why shouldn't Richard have chosen Fotheringhay for his? Pity Fotheringhay
> is now in ruins, it would, to me at least, be both very appropriate *and*
> solve a lot of problems..
> While I do agree with colynbourne about the process being flawed (and wonder
> why the national government hasn't gotten more directly involved), I think
> any bureaucratic "mistakes" that may have been made were due simply to the
> sheer odds *against* Richard remains actually being discovered and time
> constraints which the dig operated under and the probable lack of any simple
> measures available to change the terms of the license.
> Although PL and JAH may have been certain Richard was there, it appears
> neither the Ministry of Justice nor the UoL really did. Nor can I really
> blame those at the MoJ and UoL either, as the discovery *did* come as a
> surprise to all the professional archeologists involved! Faced with
> something unexpected, however, both entities fell back on the strict letter
> of the law - which, in accordance with the license and lacking any actual
> close relatives or any definite knowledge of the deceased wishes, requires
> re-interrment in the nearest suitable consecrated ground - in this case
> Leicester Cathedral.
> If Richard isn't to be re-buried where he *might* have intended to be (which
> appears to be Fotheringhay), I personally am quite happy to see him
> re-interred at Leicester Cathedral, as long as his tomb is approriate.
> Personally, I'd like to see a grassy cloistered area with a table-top tomb
> in the center, but I have no idea of either the cost or whether it's even
> physically possible. If, for *any* reason, Leicester can't re-interr Richard
> properly, then he should be re-buried elsewhere. Which will probably open
> yet another "can of worms"!
> I was going to hit "send" when a thought occurred. After all, as parking
> *is* a major consideration nowadays, could a (the?) reason Leicester
> Cathedral might seem to be hesitatant is because the *only* way they can
> provide space for a proper tomb for Richard, and not just an up-dated slab
> marker, is because it would require the Cathedral to reduce the amount of
> available parking for worshippers/events attendees? If so, the irony!
> Doug
>

::sweet smile:: My work here is done.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> wednesday_mc
>
> "Here Lies Our Tourist Attraction vs. Here Lies Our King Of England..."
> //snip//
>
> Don't DO that when I'm drinking my coffee!
> Doug
>

I dont know if it will be a tourist attraction at all....I think people will just go to see Richard's burial place and the museum and then leave. I don't want to appear rude but what else is there to see in Leicester? People will probably include it in with a trip to the battle site but I think Leicester Council is barking up the wrong tree if they think Leicester is going to become a Mecca for tourists...or make them money...eileen
--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> ::sweet smile:: My work here is done.
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > wednesday_mc
> >
> > "Here Lies Our Tourist Attraction vs. Here Lies Our King Of England..."
> > //snip//
> >
> > Don't DO that when I'm drinking my coffee!
> > Doug
> >
>

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: King Richard III burial row
heads to High Court


> I was going to hit "send" when a thought occurred. After all, as parking
*is* a major consideration nowadays, could a (the?) reason Leicester
Cathedral might seem to be hesitatant is because the *only* way they can
provide space for a proper tomb for Richard, and not just an up-dated slab
marker, is because it would require the Cathedral to reduce the amount of
available parking for worshippers/events attendees? If so, the irony!
Doug

This isn't the case - but space is very tight. So tight that the cathedral
doesn't actually have any parking space that I can see, apart from a tiny
area to the side of the north door which might possibly hold three cars if
they were very closely parked.

If you look at the cathedral in Google's aerial view you'll see that on the
south side of the cathedral there are two areas of grass and bushes, each
about the size of a largeish suburban garden (these are the *only* spaces
around the cathedral - otherwise it's right up against roads or other
properties). The one on the right/east is out because a) it's already been
extensively landscaped and b) there are some graves in it. The one on the
left/west looks possible, however - it seems to be just a plain lawn and a
few bushes.

What I suggested when I wrote to them was turning the space on the left into
a memorial garden commemorating all the dead of Bosworth, surrounding a
small side-chapel containing a table tomb for Richard, with white roses
around the chapel and the pink-and-white-splashed Old Garden Roses called
York-and-Lancaster in the rest of the garden.

However, a chapel on this space *would* be close to the cathedral of
necessity and therefore *would* be at least partially in front of two of the
cathedral's stained-glass windows. But the windows start 7ft from the
ground, so my suggestion was that the chapel should be set down 3ft so that
it doesn't impinge on the windows, and the resultant bank around it turned
into a landscape feature. And the chapel should include a small altar and
some pews, because couples from all over the world will want to marry there.

I can see the visual appeal of a cloister, but if the tomb is exposed to the
elements it isn't going to last all that long, unless it's made of very
durable stone. The rain it raineth every day, remember - nearly literally.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one
meaning


> I dont know if it will be a tourist attraction at all....I think people
> will just go to see Richard's burial place and the museum and then leave.
> I don't want to appear rude but what else is there to see in Leicester?

A few fine old houses and some excellent Roman remains. It may be a bit of
a dump, but it's a very, very old and historic dump.

Are the Roman remains on display?

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 6:54 PM
> Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one
> meaning
>
>
> > I dont know if it will be a tourist attraction at all....I think people
> > will just go to see Richard's burial place and the museum and then leave.
> > I don't want to appear rude but what else is there to see in Leicester?
>
> A few fine old houses and some excellent Roman remains. It may be a bit of
> a dump, but it's a very, very old and historic dump.
>

Talking of which...
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2318880/Is-left-park-Leicester-Roman-cemetery-archaeological-dig-ANOTHER-car-park-city.html?ico=sciencetech^headlines


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 3 May 2013, 19:47
Subject: Re: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one meaning

 
From: EileenB
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one
meaning

> I dont know if it will be a tourist attraction at all....I think people
> will just go to see Richard's burial place and the museum and then leave.
> I don't want to appear rude but what else is there to see in Leicester?

A few fine old houses and some excellent Roman remains. It may be a bit of
a dump, but it's a very, very old and historic dump.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one
meaning


> Are the Roman remains on display?

I don't know if you can see any of the ruins in situ, since they're in the
middle of the town - but there's a wee museum devoted to them.

[The university won an award for architecture, btw - but in the 1970s, which
probably tells you all you need to know.]

And of course, for the Ricardian visitor there's a pilgrimage to nearby
Sutton Cheney - which is lovely.

Yes Ive been to Sutton Cheney, twice, both times I visited the battlefield. Very, very moving.

I think this is what might well happen, that after visiting Richard's tomb people will travel a little further on to the battlefield and/or Sutton Cheney. I guess we will just have to see how it pans out...

I think the trouble is that Leicester lacks the ambience of other cathedral cities. Canterbury, York, Lincoln, Norwich and others have lots more to see/do plus lovely places to eat. I can remember though being really, really disappointed with Gloucester, not the cathedral which is magnificent. Maybe it was badly bombed in the war...but there is really not that much which is old left now...
eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:39 PM
> Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one
> meaning
>
>
> > Are the Roman remains on display?
>
> I don't know if you can see any of the ruins in situ, since they're in the
> middle of the town - but there's a wee museum devoted to them.
>
> [The university won an award for architecture, btw - but in the 1970s, which
> probably tells you all you need to know.]
>
> And of course, for the Ricardian visitor there's a pilgrimage to nearby
> Sutton Cheney - which is lovely.
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one
meaning


> I think the trouble is that Leicester lacks the ambience of other
> cathedral cities. Canterbury, York, Lincoln, Norwich and others have lots
> more to see/do plus lovely places to eat.

And even the cathedral itself is a bit municipal-looking. I just hope that
their stated desire to have Richard's tomb made by the best designers and
craftsmen is genuine - it might raise the tone a bit.

Hopefully....Come to think of it....it may work in our favour. If it is mainly Ricardians and similar minded people visiting it could mean that it remains peaceful and possible to spend some time there, at the tomb, without feeling the need to have to hurry up and move on. Time will tell.....eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 9:40 PM
> Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one
> meaning
>
>
> > I think the trouble is that Leicester lacks the ambience of other
> > cathedral cities. Canterbury, York, Lincoln, Norwich and others have lots
> > more to see/do plus lovely places to eat.
>
> And even the cathedral itself is a bit municipal-looking. I just hope that
> their stated desire to have Richard's tomb made by the best designers and
> craftsmen is genuine - it might raise the tone a bit.
>

Yes, Eileen, Gloucester has been devastated. The war caused damage, but the awful 1960s were far worse. I remember seeing whole medieval streets pulled down to make way for---guess what?---a car park! Charming old buildings were defaced with modern fronts, and all the history simply erased. It's still very beautiful around the cathedral, and the docks are marvellous. What Gloucester does have is a central position for so much else, the Cotswolds, the Forest of Dean, Tewkesbury, Cheltenham, Berkeley Castle, the Malverns, the Vale of the Severn, Swift access to Wales. Oh, and the amazing Severn bore, of course. All wonderful. And the M5 makes it so easy to reach. There is a LOT to do in and around Gloucester.

I love living here and have felt at home' since moving to the area in 1963. Don't want to move, that's for sure. But Gloucester isn't going to get a look-in with Richard, more is the pity. He did have connections with us, and not only the name of his dukedom. There's the 1483 charter, and Gloucester was one of the few cities not to put on pageants for Henry VII when he made his progress. And the city closed its gates to Margaret of Anjou's army, forcing it to move on to Tewkesbury. The rest is history. Good for Gloucester! We have Edward II and Richard II's beautifully painted white harts. So touching that Richard II came to look at Edward's tomb, and had his badge painted around it. Sad kings, both of them.

The beautiful 1483 charter can be seen at http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/story-18232254-detail/story.html#axzz2SDn8BS6s

Sandra


From: EileenB
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 9:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one meaning
I think the trouble is that Leicester lacks the ambience of other cathedral cities. Canterbury, York, Lincoln, Norwich and others have lots more to see/do plus lovely places to eat. I can remember though being really, really disappointed with Gloucester, not the cathedral which is magnificent. Maybe it was badly bombed in the war...but there is really not that much which is old left now...

Developers have a lot to answer for.  I used to work for a property development company and can honestly say it was the worst job I ever had.  They were a nasty bunch.  I then went to work for the conservation architect and I can't repeat what the people there thought of developers!



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 3 May 2013, 22:06
Subject: Re: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one meaning

 
SNIP > Yes, Eileen, Gloucester has been devastated. The war caused damage, but the awful 1960s were far worse. I remember seeing whole medieval streets pulled down to make way for---guess what?---a car park! Charming old buildings were defaced with modern fronts, and all the history simply erased.
MARKETPLACE

________________________________


________________________________


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

Sandra that is terrible.....I could see plenty of plaques on the buildings which stood where ancient buildings had stood but all gone. Gloucester is not the only place to have suffered in the 50/60s...London too. Whole Georgian terraces torn down, Tudor timber framed buildings....I have a book, someone else mentioned on here, Lost London and it is heartbreaking...some photos taken as the buildings were actually being pulled down, 16th century interiors wantonly destroyed. It is just heartbreaking...As it the Blitz was not bad enough...

I am a Londoner but I do live in Gloucestershire now...so I am very lucky indeed as within easy reach of these places you have mentioned.
Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, Eileen, Gloucester has been devastated. The war caused damage, but the awful 1960s were far worse. I remember seeing whole medieval streets pulled down to make way for---guess what?---a car park! Charming old buildings were defaced with modern fronts, and all the history simply erased. It’s still very beautiful around the cathedral, and the docks are marvellous. What Gloucester does have is a central position for so much else, the Cotswolds, the Forest of Dean, Tewkesbury, Cheltenham, Berkeley Castle, the Malverns, the Vale of the Severn, Swift access to Wales. Oh, and the amazing Severn bore, of course. All wonderful. And the M5 makes it so easy to reach. There is a LOT to do in and around Gloucester.
>
> I love living here and have felt ‘at home’ since moving to the area in 1963. Don’t want to move, that’s for sure. But Gloucester isn’t going to get a look-in with Richard, more is the pity. He did have connections with us, and not only the name of his dukedom. There’s the 1483 charter, and Gloucester was one of the few cities not to put on pageants for Henry VII when he made his progress. And the city closed its gates to Margaret of Anjou’s army, forcing it to move on to Tewkesbury. The rest is history. Good for Gloucester! We have Edward II and Richard II’s beautifully painted white harts. So touching that Richard II came to look at Edward’s tomb, and had his badge painted around it. Sad kings, both of them.
>
> The beautiful 1483 charter can be seen at http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/story-18232254-detail/story.html#axzz2SDn8BS6s
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 9:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one meaning
> I think the trouble is that Leicester lacks the ambience of other cathedral cities. Canterbury, York, Lincoln, Norwich and others have lots more to see/do plus lovely places to eat. I can remember though being really, really disappointed with Gloucester, not the cathedral which is magnificent. Maybe it was badly bombed in the war...but there is really not that much which is old left now...
>
>
>
>

Personally I think they should be hung...developers.

They destroyed so much and then put people in tower blocks...Doh...eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Developers have a lot to answer for.  I used to work for a property development company and can honestly say it was the worst job I ever had.  They were a nasty bunch.  I then went to work for the conservation architect and I can't repeat what the people there thought of developers!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 3 May 2013, 22:06
> Subject: Re: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one meaning
>
>  
> SNIP > Yes, Eileen, Gloucester has been devastated. The war caused damage, but the awful 1960s were far worse. I remember seeing whole medieval streets pulled down to make way for---guess what?---a car park! Charming old buildings were defaced with modern fronts, and all the history simply erased.
> MARKETPLACE
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> .
>
>
>
>

San Antonio is an old city by US Standards..... Thank goodness in the early 20th Century a whole lot of "little old ladies in tennis shoes" started a very pro-active Conservation/Preservation Society and most of the historic churches, homes and facilities have been kept from the greedy little hands of developers. However, since Britain has us beat by 1,000+ years of time and buildings, I can only imagine what has been lost to time, ravages of weather and war, and then the greedy little hands of developers! We now have a really tough Historic Review Process within the City and a whopping number of ordinances for trees, noise, lights, and signs etc. which have to be placated before anything can be constructed. Not every place is able to be saved, but an astonishing number are. It took my first trip to Europe to understand what "old buildings" really are. Mexico has amazing archaeological wonders, which have been preserved or, in the jungles of Southern Mexico, uncovered. They are amazing, and gorgeous.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 4:11 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one meaning



Developers have a lot to answer for. I used to work for a property development company and can honestly say it was the worst job I ever had. They were a nasty bunch. I then went to work for the conservation architect and I can't repeat what the people there thought of developers!

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 3 May 2013, 22:06
Subject: Re: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one meaning


SNIP > Yes, Eileen, Gloucester has been devastated. The war caused damage, but the awful 1960s were far worse. I remember seeing whole medieval streets pulled down to make way for---guess what?---a car park! Charming old buildings were defaced with modern fronts, and all the history simply erased.
MARKETPLACE

________________________________

________________________________

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

Col, I second Eileen.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 3, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Col..please do not get depressed...I have long admired your tenacity regarding King Richard's final burial place. I see in one of your messages you wrote you have friends overseas who are 'staggered how appallingly this has been handled in this county that prides itself on its historical heritage and monarchy and that the government and crown have washed their hands of the business'..every word of which I agree with....Its absolutely shameful and a scandal.
>
> At the end of the day, whatever the outcome, your loyalty to King Richard must be commended....just wanted to say...Eileen
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> > "in the case of human remains which are excavated in a dig, the approved practice is re-interment in the nearest consecrated ground."
> >
> > In the case of unknown remains, yes - but even this is not necessarily the case - eg the plague victims in London will not necessarily be laid to rest in the nearest burial ground; the medieval plague remains discovered in Hereford Cathedral grounds in the 1990's were not re-interred within the cathedral grounds; the situation with a "named individual" is very different, and procedure wasn't followed. No publicly accountable process at all seems to have been followed in the whole affair, as far as I can see.
> >
> > Leicester politicians may well have said "possessive" things about the remains, and their "use" in the City of Culture bid and in tourism, but Richard Buckley also apparently stated in an interview in late March "He's our King in our City". Erm, no - he's a King of England that Leicester happens to have virtually privatised to the exclusion of the rest of the country.
> >
> > Sorry but I find the description of "Yorkshire worthies" as rather patronising. Leicester were not going to do this dig - ever - if it hadn't been for the money and persistence of PL and JAH (and Leicester Council working out that they could make some money from it). So there are no Leicester worthies either. And archaeology depts. do not generally dig up burial grounds just to find where an individual might be buried: Edward of Middleham is very likely either in Sheriff Hutton or York Minster or Coverham Abbey - so how exactly and more importantly *why* anyone was meant to be hunting for him, I don't know.
> >
> > Richard called York his "home-coming" - how can that be anything but indicative of it being the place where he should now be laid to rest? And unfortunately yes, the north-south divide still exists (and in this day and age grows stronger) and Richard, to my mind, belongs utterly in the north - not in the centre of England, and not in the town near where he died and where his despoiled body was put on display. Not Leicester's fault, I know, but still the place where it happened. His life was elsewhere - not in that town (as it was then) - and his memorial should speak of his life.
> >
> > I'll go back to lurking for a bit because I find the whole thing very depressing.
> >
> > Col
> >
> > --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Janet -
> > >
> > > You're right, to the best of my knowledge, the statue of Richard at
> > > Leicester, as well as the memorial slab, and the plaque at the Bow Bridge
> > > (?) were provided by the RIII Society. If there was any indication otherwise
> > > in what I wrote it was strictly unintentional. I believe in trying to keep
> > > the arguments on both sides as factual as possible. Otherwise, all we're
> > > doing is "fuzzifying the muddification," as Allan Fotheringham used to say.
> > > J But, nevertheless, Leicester does have King Richard's Road (the road on
> > > which he was brought back to Leicester, probably the same that he rode out
> > > on to battle) and the King Richard III School. There may be other
> > > remembrances as well that I am not aware of, not being either a Leicester
> > > or a UK resident, unfortunately as far as I am concerned. I think the fact
> > > that Leicester is smaller (including the Cathedral) and is not the burial
> > > site of any other kings is a plus for everyone, including celebrating
> > > Richard's memory into the future.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have followed developments closely, as I mentioned. I have heard Richard
> > > Buckley, head of the archeological team, speak about their involvement in
> > > the search, and have read his statements in recorded interviews. It was not
> > > that they were "reluctant" to get involved with the search for Richard, but
> > > that they felt it was an approximately million-to-one shot that they would
> > > find him. Many times he said, in historical archeology, you don't go looking
> > > for a named individual, and find him. So his justification for the search
> > > was to find out more about the Greyfriars, which was a search that was
> > > likely to be successful. That doesn't mean they were reluctant to go
> > > looking, probably it means that if they had to present the University's and
> > > ULAS's case for the dig, they had to justify it primarily in terms of the
> > > search to uncover an important part of Leicester's past, not primarily as a
> > > search for Richard, unlike PL and of course the Society. J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway, although the Town may be thinking of the RIII Trail and such things
> > > as money-makers, the fact is that they are creating memorials, for which
> > > they are spending the money, which are designed to be attractive as well as
> > > educational. Some of the Town worthies certainly have spoken a bit
> > > in-elegantly or crassly, but, hey, they are politicians, we can hardly
> > > expect otherwise, upon occasion. It may be that Leicester, like the rest of
> > > the UK, has been in a bit of a financial crisis, and you can't blame them
> > > for seizing upon the amazing degree of interest worldwide in Richard as a
> > > potential financial windfall. If it is done tastefully, I have no problem
> > > with that, and I don't mind contributing my $$$$, as far as I am able.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As I wrote earlier, what has my nose out of joint is the proposal to put
> > > King Richard under a slab. Bah, humbug, I say! Now, the fact is that there
> > > have been discussions all along about what would happen if Richard was
> > > found. Some of the parties may have thought this to be a hypothetical
> > > exercise, but the RIII Society did run the tomb design by the parties at the
> > > Cathedral, and there was approval, prior to the discovery of the remains. I
> > > think it is very possible that all this was part of the process of inducing
> > > agreement to the dig. That is, perhaps RIII Society indicated that it would
> > > be agreeable, yes, if RIII were found, that he would be reinterred close by.
> > > I would make it clear, I am speculating about that, but also, it was made
> > > clear in previous press releases, articles and such, that in the case of
> > > human remains which are excavated in a dig, the approved practice is
> > > reinterment in the nearest consecrated ground. They indicated that this is
> > > what has been decided in the case of Richard. I think it is a different
> > > thing to propose reburying him within the UK. I mean, it's not like his body
> > > is lying somewhere halfway around the world or anything. Leicester is the
> > > approximate center of Richard's kingdom, an area he knew well; he had been
> > > there on occasions prior to 1485. It is also *not* the "South" of England,
> > > though personally I have nothing against the South - but I understand that
> > > the Midlands is indeed a sort of a mediator between South and North of
> > > England linguistically as well as geographically. Richard was born and
> > > raised at Fotheringhay, then at Ludlow, then abroad, then at London, and
> > > only later did he go to Yorkshire, to live and train under Warwick at
> > > Middleham. However, to the best of my knowledge, he never lived at York.
> > > Yes, Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales there, but he was
> > > buried elsewhere. (Speaking of which, did the Yorkshire worthies carefully
> > > tend and preserve EoM's grave?)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As I was getting to, I personally have my nose out of joint because of the
> > > recent thing from the Interim Dean at Leicester about Richard's honourable
> > > and dishonourable characteristics, and the slab thing. So, I think it is
> > > natural for people like me to react emotionally and to then question the
> > > whole process of the approval. But, the fact is that the remains were not
> > > identified when the license to exhume was applied for, the fact is that they
> > > only applied for the license because at that point they figured it was
> > > Richard. Yes, perhaps the process is flawed. But I'm not sure that it is
> > > invalid, no matter what our gripes. Frankly, however, I am personally
> > > prepared to boycott the Cathedral and perhaps Leicester as a whole if
> > > Richard is not accorded a proper tomb and other dignity that he deserves.
> > > And I would be prepared to support a cenotaph at York or elsewhere which
> > > would be a monument such as Richard richly deserves.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > (There are probably more thoughts of this which escape me for the time
> > > being. J)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 Janet Ashton
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:05 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads
> > > to High Court
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Johanne, I had the impression that the statue to Richard in
> > > Leicester was funded by the Richard III Society rather than by the City of
> > > Leicester. Richard was not killed and buried in York, so it was not an
> > > obvious place for a memorial, and yet there is a museum there to him - which
> > > I'd say is good evidence that someone cares. Plus the evidence which Carol
> > > quoted. And yes - pubs. And then there's the rest of the county, and
> > > surrounding area, evoking Richard in lots of ways from the genuine to the
> > > apocryphal. People I know who live in York and are interested in him have
> > > been surprised and hurt to read all over the internet that "they had never
> > > shown an interest until now".
> > > From what I can see, the dig to find Richard's bones was carried out at the
> > > instigation of the Richard III Society with the involvement - reluctant at
> > > first - of the University of Leicester and Leceister Council, who happened
> > > to be on the scene. I don't know if anyone else who happened not to be local
> > > was asked to be involved, but the funds which did this work do not come from
> > > the people of Leicester - they are national funds; even city councils are
> > > funded by central government to the best of my knowledge. Once the bones
> > > were found, other national bodies were involved, including the Royal
> > > Armouries Museum. I don't think anywhere should be able to claim that it has
> > > "bought" someone's bones; and even it could I don't see any argument that
> > > Leicester has done so.
> > > It looks as if the relationship between the Society and Leicester University
> > > has gone very sour, with the Society being more or less sidelined as the
> > > University takes credit for the project. Really - I can't see this as some
> > > happy party which York has rudely gate-crashed without bringing a bottle!
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > --- On Thu, 2/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@
> > > <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@
> > > <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
> > > Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads
> > > to High Court
> > > To:
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Thursday, 2 May, 2013, 12:34
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi, Pamela -
> > >
> > > Admittedly, I am sticking my oar in where I have no business, which I admit.
> > >
> > > However, I guess I have a right to a point of view . . . and it is this, in
> > >
> > > brief.
> > >
> > > I first became aware of all the recent developments as a result of the press
> > >
> > > conference they held on Sept. 12 last year. Since then I have followed all
> > >
> > > developments with rapt interest. What I saw at the time was a partnership
> > >
> > > between the RIII Society (especially "Society ramrod" Philippa Langley :-) )
> > >
> > > and the various Leicester-based groups (especially the University, the
> > >
> > > archeological team, and the town) to fund and spur the search for Richard.
> > >
> > > York was nowhere in evidence, nor to the best of my knowledge, have any of
> > >
> > > those "collateral descendants," been in evidence for the last 500+ years.
> > >
> > > During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond
> > >
> > > regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for
> > >
> > > showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III
> > >
> > > School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded
> > >
> > > by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).
> > >
> > > Not a peep from anyone at York.
> > >
> > > Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
> > >
> > > commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own
> > >
> > > initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

It took York Minster 15 years to agree to have the stained glass memorial window.

 EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Has York, and when I say York I mean York Minster not the citizens of York, ever offered or requested that Richard be buried there....I cannot for the life of me ever recall them putting forward a request or argument in this respect. I agree 100% with what Marie is saying...As far as I can tell York Minster don't want Richard anyway....what the citizens of York or Leicester or the Society want does not come into it...that's the truth of. eileen


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, didn't York withdraw their offer? There's no point in demanding that we be allowed to bury him there if the authorities have not first been persuaded to accept him.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > The " descendants" might be dubious but I still have beef with the Leicester Cathedral about " honorable-dishonorable act" ! And throwing out the table tomb out of the window. If they are not bothered about his dignity why should we support this particular place? If York gives him a burial fit for a king, I will go with them. And every time there is a mention of " tourist money" I cringe. That should not be a factor in this. The factor should be proper respect for his remains and not sudden volte faces! ( end of rant)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On May 2, 2013, at 12:23 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip] During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).
> > > > Not a peep from anyone at York.
> > > >
> > > > Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to
> > > > commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.
> > > >
> > > > Also, to the best of my knowledge, when Richard made the appeal for troops to help defend his Crown before Bosworth, the town fathers (like town fathers everywhere) dillied and dallied and never did send any troops. [snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I agree with most of your post though I would mention the moving tribute to Richard in the York Civic Records when they received the terrible news that "King Richard, late mercifully reigning upon us" had been "piteously slain and murdered" in battle, a very fitting tribute despite York's confusion regarding the identity of the traitors (quoted from memory in modern English so it may not be exact). If I recall correctly, York, which had been ravaged by plague, sent about eighty men. Two, John Sponer or Spooner, Sergeant of the Mace (whatever that is) and John Nicholson, a messenger, rode ahead to meet with Richard at Nottingham. According to Kendall, the city had received word that the enemy had landed but no instructions from Northumberland, who was in charge of recruiting in the North. Not knowing what to do, they sent Sponer and Northumberland to Richard in Beskwood Lodge to "understand {Richard's pleasure in sending up any of his subjects
within this city to his said grace for the subduing of his enemies late arrived in . . . Wales." Meanwhile, the council sent to any aldermen not ill with the plague for their advice and ordered all men in the city to "be ready in their most defensible array to attend upon the mayor" while they waited for word from Richard.
> > >
> > > John Sponer chose to remain and fight for Richard (he later delivered the bad news to York); Nicholson returned with the message that Richard needed their help. York immediately sent "four score men . . . defensibly arrayed . . . should in all haste possible" go to the aid of the king.
> > >
> > > We can only assume that had it not been for the plague and for Northumberland's not sending instructions to York that they would have sent a much larger contingent much earlier. As it was, they arrived too late to participate in the battle because, for whatever reason, Richard chose not to wait.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't blame York in Richard's day. The city was definitely loyal to and grateful to Richard. Even Francis Bacon, and admirer of Henry Tudor, wrote that in his day the memory of Richard III still "lay like lees in the bottom of men's hearts, and if the vessel was but stirred, it would come up."
> > >
> > > But it's certainly true that the "descendants" are stating Richard's supposed wishes on insufficient evidence. It seems that, whatever plans he had for his interrment as Duke of Gloucester changed when he became king. Most likely, he would have preferred to be buried either beside Anne at Westminster or beside Edward at Windsor. (He may have set aside a spot there near the one he chose for Henry VI. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read that except that it was online.)
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi Johanne,         Yes, I know that Leicester has memorials to Richard - but my point was that so does York and places all over Yorkshire and adjacent counties - which seemed to come as something of a surprise to many people in Leicester and others who supported them.
like Col, I am not sure why anyone would want to dig up poor little Edward of Middleham, and how it reflects badly on them that they didn't! 
J.--- On Fri, 3/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
To:
Date: Friday, 3 May, 2013, 14:26
















 









Hi, Janet -



You're right, to the best of my knowledge, the statue of Richard at

Leicester, as well as the memorial slab, and the plaque at the Bow Bridge

(?) were provided by the RIII Society. If there was any indication otherwise

in what I wrote it was strictly unintentional. I believe in trying to keep

the arguments on both sides as factual as possible. Otherwise, all we're

doing is "fuzzifying the muddification," as Allan Fotheringham used to say.

J But, nevertheless, Leicester does have King Richard's Road (the road on

which he was brought back to Leicester, probably the same that he rode out

on to battle) and the King Richard III School. There may be other

remembrances as well that I am not aware of, not being either a Leicester

or a UK resident, unfortunately as far as I am concerned. I think the fact

that Leicester is smaller (including the Cathedral) and is not the burial

site of any other kings is a plus for everyone, including celebrating

Richard's memory into the future.



I have followed developments closely, as I mentioned. I have heard Richard

Buckley, head of the archeological team, speak about their involvement in

the search, and have read his statements in recorded interviews. It was not

that they were "reluctant" to get involved with the search for Richard, but

that they felt it was an approximately million-to-one shot that they would

find him. Many times he said, in historical archeology, you don't go looking

for a named individual, and find him. So his justification for the search

was to find out more about the Greyfriars, which was a search that was

likely to be successful. That doesn't mean they were reluctant to go

looking, probably it means that if they had to present the University's and

ULAS's case for the dig, they had to justify it primarily in terms of the

search to uncover an important part of Leicester's past, not primarily as a

search for Richard, unlike PL and of course the Society. J



Anyway, although the Town may be thinking of the RIII Trail and such things

as money-makers, the fact is that they are creating memorials, for which

they are spending the money, which are designed to be attractive as well as

educational. Some of the Town worthies certainly have spoken a bit

in-elegantly or crassly, but, hey, they are politicians, we can hardly

expect otherwise, upon occasion. It may be that Leicester, like the rest of

the UK, has been in a bit of a financial crisis, and you can't blame them

for seizing upon the amazing degree of interest worldwide in Richard as a

potential financial windfall. If it is done tastefully, I have no problem

with that, and I don't mind contributing my $$$$, as far as I am able.



As I wrote earlier, what has my nose out of joint is the proposal to put

King Richard under a slab. Bah, humbug, I say! Now, the fact is that there

have been discussions all along about what would happen if Richard was

found. Some of the parties may have thought this to be a hypothetical

exercise, but the RIII Society did run the tomb design by the parties at the

Cathedral, and there was approval, prior to the discovery of the remains. I

think it is very possible that all this was part of the process of inducing

agreement to the dig. That is, perhaps RIII Society indicated that it would

be agreeable, yes, if RIII were found, that he would be reinterred close by.

I would make it clear, I am speculating about that, but also, it was made

clear in previous press releases, articles and such, that in the case of

human remains which are excavated in a dig, the approved practice is

reinterment in the nearest consecrated ground. They indicated that this is

what has been decided in the case of Richard. I think it is a different

thing to propose reburying him within the UK. I mean, it's not like his body

is lying somewhere halfway around the world or anything. Leicester is the

approximate center of Richard's kingdom, an area he knew well; he had been

there on occasions prior to 1485. It is also *not* the "South" of England,

though personally I have nothing against the South - but I understand that

the Midlands is indeed a sort of a mediator between South and North of

England linguistically as well as geographically. Richard was born and

raised at Fotheringhay, then at Ludlow, then abroad, then at London, and

only later did he go to Yorkshire, to live and train under Warwick at

Middleham. However, to the best of my knowledge, he never lived at York.

Yes, Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales there, but he was

buried elsewhere. (Speaking of which, did the Yorkshire worthies carefully

tend and preserve EoM's grave?)



As I was getting to, I personally have my nose out of joint because of the

recent thing from the Interim Dean at Leicester about Richard's honourable

and dishonourable characteristics, and the slab thing. So, I think it is

natural for people like me to react emotionally and to then question the

whole process of the approval. But, the fact is that the remains were not

identified when the license to exhume was applied for, the fact is that they

only applied for the license because at that point they figured it was

Richard. Yes, perhaps the process is flawed. But I'm not sure that it is

invalid, no matter what our gripes. Frankly, however, I am personally

prepared to boycott the Cathedral and perhaps Leicester as a whole if

Richard is not accorded a proper tomb and other dignity that he deserves.

And I would be prepared to support a cenotaph at York or elsewhere which

would be a monument such as Richard richly deserves.



(There are probably more thoughts of this which escape me for the time

being. J)



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 Janet Ashton

Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:05 PM

To:

Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads

to High Court



Hi Johanne, I had the impression that the statue to Richard in

Leicester was funded by the Richard III Society rather than by the City of

Leicester. Richard was not killed and buried in York, so it was not an

obvious place for a memorial, and yet there is a museum there to him - which

I'd say is good evidence that someone cares. Plus the evidence which Carol

quoted. And yes - pubs. And then there's the rest of the county, and

surrounding area, evoking Richard in lots of ways from the genuine to the

apocryphal. People I know who live in York and are interested in him have

been surprised and hurt to read all over the internet that "they had never

shown an interest until now".

From what I can see, the dig to find Richard's bones was carried out at the

instigation of the Richard III Society with the involvement - reluctant at

first - of the University of Leicester and Leceister Council, who happened

to be on the scene. I don't know if anyone else who happened not to be local

was asked to be involved, but the funds which did this work do not come from

the people of Leicester - they are national funds; even city councils are

funded by central government to the best of my knowledge. Once the bones

were found, other national bodies were involved, including the Royal

Armouries Museum. I don't think anywhere should be able to claim that it has

"bought" someone's bones; and even it could I don't see any argument that

Leicester has done so.

It looks as if the relationship between the Society and Leicester University

has gone very sour, with the Society being more or less sidelined as the

University takes credit for the project. Really - I can't see this as some

happy party which York has rudely gate-crashed without bringing a bottle!

:-)



--- On Thu, 2/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...

<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > wrote:



From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...

<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >

Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads

to High Court

To:

<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

Date: Thursday, 2 May, 2013, 12:34



Hi, Pamela -



Admittedly, I am sticking my oar in where I have no business, which I admit.



However, I guess I have a right to a point of view . . . and it is this, in



brief.



I first became aware of all the recent developments as a result of the press



conference they held on Sept. 12 last year. Since then I have followed all



developments with rapt interest. What I saw at the time was a partnership



between the RIII Society (especially "Society ramrod" Philippa Langley :-) )



and the various Leicester-based groups (especially the University, the



archeological team, and the town) to fund and spur the search for Richard.



York was nowhere in evidence, nor to the best of my knowledge, have any of



those "collateral descendants," been in evidence for the last 500+ years.



During those 500 years, there have been evidences of Leicester's rather fond



regard for Richard, and I would assume that no credit accrued to them for



showing such regard - including King Richard's Road and the Richard III



School, and I guess at one point, one could include the former tomb funded



by Henry VII and the monument erected by Mr. Herrick (first name Robert?).



Not a peep from anyone at York.



Is there anything at York, other than the stained glass window, to



commemorate Richard? Anything that the Townspeople have done on their own



initiative? I am not aware of anything, but I'm open to being persuaded.

My maternal grandmother came from several generations of Gloucestershire people, my mother was born nearby and I spent my teens in the area - and have to agree about Gloucester. Unfortunately, a lot of smaller British cities seem to me to be this way - they were destroyed by town planners in the 60s or earlier (it's not just the war to blame, even in the case of Coventry, a lot of which was ripped down in the 30s) and have never recovered. I was in the centre of Bradford the other day with someone who commented on how depressed it is, how empty of people and life, and both Coventry and Gloucester were mentioned as well.
There's a north/south divide, but some bits of the "north" are also in the south (and definitely in London), and vice versa. 

--- On Fri, 3/5/13, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one meaning
To:
Date: Friday, 3 May, 2013, 21:40
















 









Yes Ive been to Sutton Cheney, twice, both times I visited the battlefield. Very, very moving.



I think this is what might well happen, that after visiting Richard's tomb people will travel a little further on to the battlefield and/or Sutton Cheney. I guess we will just have to see how it pans out...



I think the trouble is that Leicester lacks the ambience of other cathedral cities. Canterbury, York, Lincoln, Norwich and others have lots more to see/do plus lovely places to eat. I can remember though being really, really disappointed with Gloucester, not the cathedral which is magnificent. Maybe it was badly bombed in the war...but there is really not that much which is old left now...

eileen



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

>

> From: EileenB

> To:

> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:39 PM

> Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one

> meaning

>

>

> > Are the Roman remains on display?

>

> I don't know if you can see any of the ruins in situ, since they're in the

> middle of the town - but there's a wee museum devoted to them.

>

> [The university won an award for architecture, btw - but in the 1970s, which

> probably tells you all you need to know.]

>

> And of course, for the Ricardian visitor there's a pilgrimage to nearby

> Sutton Cheney - which is lovely.

>

From: Pamela Furmidge
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
to High Court


> It took York Minster 15 years to agree to have the stained glass memorial
> window.

I don't know how high- or low-church York Misnter is, but it's possible they
might be reluctant on theological grounds to house somebody whose status in
the north is such that he's likely to be treated as a sort of saint.

From: Janet Ashton
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Re: "Interrment" can have more than
one meaning


> My maternal grandmother came from several generations of Gloucestershire
> people, my mother was born nearby and I spent my teens in the area - and
> have to agree about Gloucester. Unfortunately, a lot of smaller British
> cities seem to me to be this way

If you want to see a sizeable town which is almost untouched, try Falkirk.
It has a modern-brutalist central shopping precinct and some nice bits of
Art Deco, but most of the rest of the town centre is early 18th C with some
new shop windows slapped on - mainly because it's such a poor area it never
had the money to modernise.

Scotland's cities have on the whole I think faired better than England's -
largely because the weather means that Scottish houses are more likely to be
made out of huge chunks of stone, which both survive better and are harder
to remove. I remember when I first came to Edinburgh in 1977 I was looking
at this very run-down-looking tenement on the Royal Mile and tut-tutting
because it had been let decay, and then I noticed the 16th C date carved
over the door and thought "Actually, for its age its condition's not that
bad". A few years later it was renovated and turned into a modern Hall of
Residence for students.

There isn't much left from Richard's day though because most of the ordinary
tenements in Edinburgh at that time - up to 16 storeys, some of them - were
wooden, and they were gradually replaced by stone over the next 200 years.

Btw I'm sure I'm not the only person on here who thinks of anything built
after 1485 as "recent".

Hello Having spoken to various people employed in York Minster very recently 27/04/2013, they are happy to receive Richard and will find an appropriate place for him should the possibility arise. They do not want to get into an unpleasant argument over the situation.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:27 AM
> Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
> to High Court
>
>
> > It took York Minster 15 years to agree to have the stained glass memorial
> > window.
>
> I don't know how high- or low-church York Misnter is, but it's possible they
> might be reluctant on theological grounds to house somebody whose status in
> the north is such that he's likely to be treated as a sort of saint.
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one
meaning


> I think the trouble is that Leicester lacks the ambience of other
> cathedral cities.

Here's a nice selection of interesting historic buildings in Leicester:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/leicester/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_9378000/9378480.stm

Its main problem seems to be that its 20th C wave of building was of
surpassing hideousness :( Everything else is lovely but it's all
surrounded by multicoloured lumps of glass and concrete executed without any
style or design-sense. It is *possible* to find mid 20th C glass and
concrete commercial buildings which have grace and style - there are a few
very nice examples in Edinburgh - but these are not they.

I had assumed btw that St Mary de Castro was Victorian Gothic revival but
no, it's authentic original Norman Gothic. It would be nice if they could
put Richard there - in a church he would have known and which was already
old in his day.

I agree about Scotland - I like a number of English cities for their life and atmosphere, but none of the big ones are actually *pretty* - whereas, to me, Edinburgh and also Glasgow are both beautiful. They both feel European, because of the tradition of people living in apartments. A friend from Glasgow did take us to Falkirk on one visit, and it's stunning.
By the away, for those of a European-holiday inclination, the Czech Republic has a fabulous number of perfectly preserved small towns, all with castles perched on hillsides above streets of ice-cream coloured churches and houses tumbling down into rivers. It's a cheap country to visit, as well. Great beer. :-)

--- On Sat, 4/5/13, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...> wrote:

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
Subject: Re: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one meaning
To:
Date: Saturday, 4 May, 2013, 11:46
















 









From: Janet Ashton

To:

Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 10:19 AM

Subject: Re: Re: "Interrment" can have more than

one meaning



> My maternal grandmother came from several generations of Gloucestershire

> people, my mother was born nearby and I spent my teens in the area - and

> have to agree about Gloucester. Unfortunately, a lot of smaller British

> cities seem to me to be this way



If you want to see a sizeable town which is almost untouched, try Falkirk.

It has a modern-brutalist central shopping precinct and some nice bits of

Art Deco, but most of the rest of the town centre is early 18th C with some

new shop windows slapped on - mainly because it's such a poor area it never

had the money to modernise.



Scotland's cities have on the whole I think faired better than England's -

largely because the weather means that Scottish houses are more likely to be

made out of huge chunks of stone, which both survive better and are harder

to remove. I remember when I first came to Edinburgh in 1977 I was looking

at this very run-down-looking tenement on the Royal Mile and tut-tutting

because it had been let decay, and then I noticed the 16th C date carved

over the door and thought "Actually, for its age its condition's not that

bad". A few years later it was renovated and turned into a modern Hall of

Residence for students.



There isn't much left from Richard's day though because most of the ordinary

tenements in Edinburgh at that time - up to 16 storeys, some of them - were

wooden, and they were gradually replaced by stone over the next 200 years.



Btw I'm sure I'm not the only person on here who thinks of anything built

after 1485 as "recent".

Dear Janet & Everyone 



Still the fact is that, so far as I know, except for private contributions to the Search for King Richard that would have been made through the RIII Society, York has expended nothing in that endeavour. It was entirely PL's project, and it was she who assembled the team which got the job done. And now, it is also true that, so far as I am aware, the total expenditure (or allocation) of the University and the Town has far exceeded even what the Society has spent toward recovering Richard's remains. One could say that they have adopted Richard as their own.



Now, Eileen may be right that they can't count on the lure of King Richard being a money-maker for them. But  do we really care about whether the Town feels it will make money? I don't think so. But we certainly do care that Richard be reinterred with due solemnity and that he have a fitting tomb. It is positive, I think, that the Town wants to link together sites that will encourage Ricardians and other interested people to linger in the area, to visit more sites, like the Castle Gardens and the Guildhall, and the new museum/exhibit dedicated to Richard which will be open by next May, 2014, in addition to the site where Richard's body was found and the Cathedral itself  to me, all of that is a very positive sign. In contrast to the excitement and enthusiasm of the Town fathers of Leicester with plans for enhancing the Richard III experience, I have heard nothing from York (publicly) as to whether they would accept his remains for reburial and, if they did, how they would propose to memorialize him.



I am glad that Richard is fondly remembered in York. There is no reason that he shouldn't continue to be fondly remembered, wherever his remains may eventually lie. I think if people really *care,* they might want to consider erection of a cenotaph to Richard's memory, something which, as I mentioned, I would actively support if Richard is not accorded the table tomb that he merits. Every town of any size in Canada has a cenotaph which is in memory of the dead who have fought in the wars, died and been buried elsewhere. The November 11 ceremonies every year are focused on these cenotaphs, a very moving experience indeed.



Regarding my comment about Edward of Middleham, I wasn't being patronizing but pointing out what seems to be fact about monuments like his and Richard's all over England (all over the UK?). . . which is that the graves have rather been forgotten and grown over and lost over time. Nowhere was I suggesting that he be dug up and reburied! (I don't see where you could get that out of what I wrote, honestly.)



Actually, if I were to suggest anything, it might be that it would be nice to have the family reunited in death  but that would mean re-locating and moving Anne as well as EoM, and I don't think that is very likely to happen, though it is probably more feasible with regard to Anne's remains than EoM's, because they at least have an idea where she is interred in the Abbey, whereas with EoM, they don't even know for sure where he was interred. Certainly it would be nice to see a monument of some sort erected to his memory, as there is nothing, so far as I know.



Regarding the comment, which Colyngbourne has made more than once, that Richard had no connection with Leicester, it is significant that Richard used it as his base in the Midlands and went out from there to confront Henry the Tydder. He spent the night there before he went to camp near Bosworth, whether it was at the Castle or the inn. He could have chosen to meet HT anywhere between London and where HT landed in Wales, so I suggest that it was Richard who deemed it especially fitting to meet HT in the center of his kingdom.



Also, regarding the procedure used for the license, my understanding is that they could dig (presumably with permission of the Town), but then when they found the bones, they had to cover them up and apply for permission to exhume. At that point, although it is true that the bones were unidentified, I believe they named six individuals, including Richard, as being likely to have been buried in the Greyfriars Church. Obviously, as I mentioned, the only individual they really wanted to exhume was Richard, and Richard Buckley was amazed that the guy they were looking for was uncovered before they had even established the location of the Friary! People have pointed out that there was no consultation  but I presume that the license to exhume was granted in accordance with established practice and the law as it existed at the time. I don't think you can restrospectively impose a different regime of them just because the discovery was unprecedented. Just because it was unprecedented doesn't mean the procedure was invalid.



One thing I would ask. I think I've said before, a respected judge of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has cautioned young lawyers many times, Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends. I have always taken that advice to heart, and I have *never* taken personal animosity toward someone just because he/she disagrees with me. But I would ask everyone on whatever side they are on in this dispute to accord others to the benefit of the doubt  for example, that I care as much for King Richard as anyone here but may have a different way of expressing it or may be coming at things from a different perspective.



It is my fondest hope that whatever is done in the end regarding due disposition of King Richard's remains will be the best possible in all the circumstances  whether it's what I seem to be endorsing, or some other resolution.



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 Janet Ashton
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:06 AM
To:
Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court





Hi Johanne, Yes, I know that Leicester has memorials to Richard - but my point was that so does York and places all over Yorkshire and adjacent counties - which seemed to come as something of a surprise to many people in Leicester and others who supported them.
like Col, I am not sure why anyone would want to dig up poor little Edward of Middleham, and how it reflects badly on them that they didn't!
J.

--- On Fri, 3/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > wrote:

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, 3 May, 2013, 14:26



Hi, Janet -

You're right, to the best of my knowledge, the statue of Richard at

Leicester, as well as the memorial slab, and the plaque at the Bow Bridge

(?) were provided by the RIII Society. If there was any indication otherwise

in what I wrote it was strictly unintentional. I believe in trying to keep

the arguments on both sides as factual as possible. Otherwise, all we're

doing is "fuzzifying the muddification," as Allan Fotheringham used to say.

J But, nevertheless, Leicester does have King Richard's Road (the road on

which he was brought back to Leicester, probably the same that he rode out

on to battle) and the King Richard III School. There may be other

remembrances as well that I am not aware of, not being either a Leicester

or a UK resident, unfortunately as far as I am concerned. I think the fact

that Leicester is smaller (including the Cathedral) and is not the burial

site of any other kings is a plus for everyone, including celebrating

Richard's memory into the future.

I have followed developments closely, as I mentioned. I have heard Richard

Buckley, head of the archeological team, speak about their involvement in

the search, and have read his statements in recorded interviews. It was not

that they were "reluctant" to get involved with the search for Richard, but

that they felt it was an approximately million-to-one shot that they would

find him. Many times he said, in historical archeology, you don't go looking

for a named individual, and find him. So his justification for the search

was to find out more about the Greyfriars, which was a search that was

likely to be successful. That doesn't mean they were reluctant to go

looking, probably it means that if they had to present the University's and

ULAS's case for the dig, they had to justify it primarily in terms of the

search to uncover an important part of Leicester's past, not primarily as a

search for Richard, unlike PL and of course the Society. J

Anyway, although the Town may be thinking of the RIII Trail and such things

as money-makers, the fact is that they are creating memorials, for which

they are spending the money, which are designed to be attractive as well as

educational. Some of the Town worthies certainly have spoken a bit

in-elegantly or crassly, but, hey, they are politicians, we can hardly

expect otherwise, upon occasion. It may be that Leicester, like the rest of

the UK, has been in a bit of a financial crisis, and you can't blame them

for seizing upon the amazing degree of interest worldwide in Richard as a

potential financial windfall. If it is done tastefully, I have no problem

with that, and I don't mind contributing my $$$$, as far as I am able.

As I wrote earlier, what has my nose out of joint is the proposal to put

King Richard under a slab. Bah, humbug, I say! Now, the fact is that there

have been discussions all along about what would happen if Richard was

found. Some of the parties may have thought this to be a hypothetical

exercise, but the RIII Society did run the tomb design by the parties at the

Cathedral, and there was approval, prior to the discovery of the remains. I

think it is very possible that all this was part of the process of inducing

agreement to the dig. That is, perhaps RIII Society indicated that it would

be agreeable, yes, if RIII were found, that he would be reinterred close by.

I would make it clear, I am speculating about that, but also, it was made

clear in previous press releases, articles and such, that in the case of

human remains which are excavated in a dig, the approved practice is

reinterment in the nearest consecrated ground. They indicated that this is

what has been decided in the case of Richard. I think it is a different

thing to propose reburying him within the UK. I mean, it's not like his body

is lying somewhere halfway around the world or anything. Leicester is the

approximate center of Richard's kingdom, an area he knew well; he had been

there on occasions prior to 1485. It is also *not* the "South" of England,

though personally I have nothing against the South - but I understand that

the Midlands is indeed a sort of a mediator between South and North of

England linguistically as well as geographically. Richard was born and

raised at Fotheringhay, then at Ludlow, then abroad, then at London, and

only later did he go to Yorkshire, to live and train under Warwick at

Middleham. However, to the best of my knowledge, he never lived at York.

Yes, Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales there, but he was

buried elsewhere. (Speaking of which, did the Yorkshire worthies carefully

tend and preserve EoM's grave?)

As I was getting to, I personally have my nose out of joint because of the

recent thing from the Interim Dean at Leicester about Richard's honourable

and dishonourable characteristics, and the slab thing. So, I think it is

natural for people like me to react emotionally and to then question the

whole process of the approval. But, the fact is that the remains were not

identified when the license to exhume was applied for, the fact is that they

only applied for the license because at that point they figured it was

Richard. Yes, perhaps the process is flawed. But I'm not sure that it is

invalid, no matter what our gripes. Frankly, however, I am personally

prepared to boycott the Cathedral and perhaps Leicester as a whole if

Richard is not accorded a proper tomb and other dignity that he deserves.

And I would be prepared to support a cenotaph at York or elsewhere which

would be a monument such as Richard richly deserves.

(There are probably more thoughts of this which escape me for the time

being. J)

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



_____

<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(1329ulvie(gid$cf022540-b499-11e2-91b1-0f05ce098648,st$1367658347055915,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121qaa4e8,aid$.ad3b2KL4J0-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>

_____

<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(1329ulvie(gid$cf022540-b499-11e2-91b1-0f05ce098648,st$1367658347055915,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121t4hhp2,aid$1O53b2KL4J0-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdG8xcjRhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3NjU4MzQ2> Yahoo! Groups

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

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=35009/stime=1367658346/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>

From: Janet Ashton
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Re: "Interrment" can have more than
one meaning


> I agree about Scotland - I like a number of English cities for their life
> and atmosphere, but none of the big ones are actually *pretty* - whereas,
> to me, Edinburgh and also Glasgow are both beautiful. They both feel
> European, because of the tradition of people living in apartments. A
> friend from Glasgow did take us to Falkirk on one visit, and it's
> stunning.

If you're prepared to accept smaller towns in England, St Albans and
Faversham both have extensive Mediaeval survivals. Faversham has a pub
called The Black Bull which dates back to 1420, and St Albans has a
wonderful abbey and extensive Roman remains - although the best Roman
remains of all are in the neighbouring towns of Caerwent and Carleon in
South Wales.

And of course Canterbury has an extensive surviving Mediaeval quarter
surrounding the cathedral. Rochester too is lovely, with a terrific (if
ruined) Mediaeval castle.

I think if York were asked to have Richard's remains, they would be both very happy to accept and also it would not take 15 yrs for them to decide (to insert the RIII stained glass, other ancient glass had to be removed: that's a significant decision for a medieval Gothic cathedral to make; though perhaps 15 yrs was a little long to decide! ;-) ) York Minster would at least have the space for a fitting tomb for a King.

As for "sainthood" - most people don't think Richard was a saint. However most English cathedrals are becoming re-acquainted with shrines and saints - eg. St Albans, Hereford - so are au fait with the emotional pull and requirements of visiting a special site for prayer.



--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:27 AM
> Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
> to High Court
>
>
> > It took York Minster 15 years to agree to have the stained glass memorial
> > window.
>
> I don't know how high- or low-church York Misnter is, but it's possible they
> might be reluctant on theological grounds to house somebody whose status in
> the north is such that he's likely to be treated as a sort of saint.
>

The small towns are definitely the places to go for aesthetic appeal in England. :-) (as well as countryside)
At least, I mean, the large cities aren't beautiful when you look at the town overall - you can still find beautiful PARTS in large cities, but I find English cities taken as a whole lacking in the same overall dramatic effect as Edinburgh gives (or Prague, or San Francisco, or many other places whose situation also helps them out). 

--- On Sat, 4/5/13, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...> wrote:

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
Subject: Re: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one meaning
To:
Date: Saturday, 4 May, 2013, 13:06
















 









From: Janet Ashton

To:

Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 12:37 PM

Subject: Re: Re: "Interrment" can have more than

one meaning



> I agree about Scotland - I like a number of English cities for their life

> and atmosphere, but none of the big ones are actually *pretty* - whereas,

> to me, Edinburgh and also Glasgow are both beautiful. They both feel

> European, because of the tradition of people living in apartments. A

> friend from Glasgow did take us to Falkirk on one visit, and it's

> stunning.



If you're prepared to accept smaller towns in England, St Albans and

Faversham both have extensive Mediaeval survivals. Faversham has a pub

called The Black Bull which dates back to 1420, and St Albans has a

wonderful abbey and extensive Roman remains - although the best Roman

remains of all are in the neighbouring towns of Caerwent and Carleon in

South Wales.



And of course Canterbury has an extensive surviving Mediaeval quarter

surrounding the cathedral. Rochester too is lovely, with a terrific (if

ruined) Mediaeval castle.

Hi Johanne,

there is no reason why York should have or would have been involved in the dig - it was taking place in Leicester and PL had approached the university there, not York University. But other academic institutions *have* been involved in some of the investigations since the discovery.

Whether Leicester has "adopted" Richard (or indeed whether York is "fond" of Richard) is immaterial. It is about Richard's connections to a place that matter, not how much cities have affection for him. And really, Richard did not make Leicester his "base in the Midlands" - he spent one night there before Bosworth - letting Tudor encroach further into England would not have been advantageous - and that night was spent at an inn because Leicester had let the castle fall into disrepair. Richard had stayed there briefly on two other occasions - passing through, so to speak.

Until there is an opportunity for York to be able to welcome Richard's remains, there is no reason for them to put forward a plan of what they would do or not do. They are awaiting some resolution as to where Richard will finally lay: then they can speak as to their delight, and what they would wish to provide.

Re the exhumation - yes, the licence to exhume was correct but once the remains were identified, then other procedures and consultations should have taken precedence. No "previous decision" on a reinterment location should have been judged as final because good practice for burials in England, *even in the case of remains over 100 years* *even when there is no legal obligation to consult* it is recommended that the deceased's own possible preferences and those of his surviving family line should be consulted and should be of weight. "There is a need for decisions to be made in the public interest, and in an accountable way."

I agree that everyone here has an abiding care for Richard and the fitting deposition of his remains, whichever location is finally chosen.

Col



--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Janet & Everyone â€"
>
>
>
> Still the fact is that, so far as I know, except for private contributions to the “Search for King Richard” that would have been made through the RIII Society, York has expended nothing in that endeavour. It was entirely PL’s project, and it was she who assembled the team which got the job done. And now, it is also true that, so far as I am aware, the total expenditure (or allocation) of the University and the Town has far exceeded even what the Society has spent toward recovering Richard’s remains. One could say that they have “adopted” Richard as their own.
>
>
>
> Now, Eileen may be right that they can’t count on the “lure” of King Richard being a money-maker for them. But â€" do we really care about whether the Town feels it will make money? I don’t think so. But we certainly do care that Richard be reinterred with due solemnity and that he have a fitting tomb. It is positive, I think, that the Town wants to link together sites that will encourage Ricardians and other interested people to linger in the area, to visit more sites, like the Castle Gardens and the Guildhall, and the new museum/exhibit dedicated to Richard which will be open by next May, 2014, in addition to the site where Richard’s body was found and the Cathedral itself â€" to me, all of that is a very positive sign. In contrast to the excitement and enthusiasm of the Town fathers of Leicester with plans for enhancing the “Richard III experience,” I have heard nothing from York (publicly) as to whether they would accept his remains for reburial and, if they did, how they would propose to memorialize him.
>
>
>
> I am glad that Richard is fondly remembered in York. There is no reason that he shouldn’t continue to be fondly remembered, wherever his remains may eventually lie. I think if people really *care,* they might want to consider erection of a cenotaph to Richard’s memory, something which, as I mentioned, I would actively support if Richard is not accorded the table tomb that he merits. Every town of any size in Canada has a “cenotaph” which is in memory of the dead who have fought in the wars, died and been buried elsewhere. The November 11 ceremonies every year are focused on these cenotaphs, a very moving experience indeed.
>
>
>
> Regarding my comment about Edward of Middleham, I wasn’t being patronizing but pointing out what seems to be fact about monuments like his and Richard’s all over England (all over the UK?). . . which is that the graves have rather been forgotten and grown over and lost over time. Nowhere was I suggesting that he be dug up and reburied! (I don’t see where you could get that out of what I wrote, honestly.)
>
>
>
> Actually, if I were to suggest anything, it might be that it would be nice to have the family reunited in death â€" but that would mean re-locating and moving Anne as well as EoM, and I don’t think that is very likely to happen, though it is probably more feasible with regard to Anne’s remains than EoM’s, because they at least have an idea where she is interred in the Abbey, whereas with EoM, they don’t even know for sure where he was interred. Certainly it would be nice to see a monument of some sort erected to his memory, as there is nothing, so far as I know.
>
>
>
> Regarding the comment, which “Colyngbourne” has made more than once, that Richard had no connection with Leicester, it is significant that Richard used it as his base in the Midlands and went out from there to confront Henry the Tydder. He spent the night there before he went to camp near Bosworth, whether it was at the Castle or the inn. He could have chosen to meet HT anywhere between London and where HT landed in Wales, so I suggest that it was Richard who deemed it especially fitting to meet HT in the center of his kingdom.
>
>
>
> Also, regarding the procedure used for the license, my understanding is that they could dig (presumably with permission of the Town), but then when they found the bones, they had to cover them up and apply for permission to exhume. At that point, although it is true that the bones were unidentified, I believe they named six individuals, including Richard, as being likely to have been buried in the Greyfriars Church. Obviously, as I mentioned, the only individual they really wanted to exhume was Richard, and Richard Buckley was amazed that the guy they were looking for was uncovered before they had even established the location of the Friary! People have pointed out that there was no consultation â€" but I presume that the license to exhume was granted in accordance with established practice and the law as it existed at the time. I don’t think you can restrospectively impose a different regime of them just because the discovery was unprecedented. Just because it was unprecedented doesn’t mean the procedure was invalid.
>
>
>
> One thing I would ask. I think I’ve said before, a respected judge of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has cautioned young lawyers many times, “Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.” I have always taken that advice to heart, and I have *never* taken personal animosity toward someone just because he/she disagrees with me. But I would ask everyone on whatever side they are on in this dispute to accord others to the benefit of the doubt â€" for example, that I care as much for King Richard as anyone here but may have a different way of expressing it or may be coming at things from a different perspective.
>
>
>
> It is my fondest hope that whatever is done in the end regarding due disposition of King Richard’s remains will be the best possible in all the circumstances â€" whether it’s what I seem to be endorsing, or some other resolution.
>
>
>
> 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 Janet Ashton
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:06 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Johanne, Yes, I know that Leicester has memorials to Richard - but my point was that so does York and places all over Yorkshire and adjacent counties - which seemed to come as something of a surprise to many people in Leicester and others who supported them.
> like Col, I am not sure why anyone would want to dig up poor little Edward of Middleham, and how it reflects badly on them that they didn't!
> J.
>
> --- On Fri, 3/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > wrote:
>
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
> Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Friday, 3 May, 2013, 14:26
>
>
>
> Hi, Janet -
>
> You're right, to the best of my knowledge, the statue of Richard at
>
> Leicester, as well as the memorial slab, and the plaque at the Bow Bridge
>
> (?) were provided by the RIII Society. If there was any indication otherwise
>
> in what I wrote it was strictly unintentional. I believe in trying to keep
>
> the arguments on both sides as factual as possible. Otherwise, all we're
>
> doing is "fuzzifying the muddification," as Allan Fotheringham used to say.
>
> J But, nevertheless, Leicester does have King Richard's Road (the road on
>
> which he was brought back to Leicester, probably the same that he rode out
>
> on to battle) and the King Richard III School. There may be other
>
> remembrances as well that I am not aware of, not being either a Leicester
>
> or a UK resident, unfortunately as far as I am concerned. I think the fact
>
> that Leicester is smaller (including the Cathedral) and is not the burial
>
> site of any other kings is a plus for everyone, including celebrating
>
> Richard's memory into the future.
>
> I have followed developments closely, as I mentioned. I have heard Richard
>
> Buckley, head of the archeological team, speak about their involvement in
>
> the search, and have read his statements in recorded interviews. It was not
>
> that they were "reluctant" to get involved with the search for Richard, but
>
> that they felt it was an approximately million-to-one shot that they would
>
> find him. Many times he said, in historical archeology, you don't go looking
>
> for a named individual, and find him. So his justification for the search
>
> was to find out more about the Greyfriars, which was a search that was
>
> likely to be successful. That doesn't mean they were reluctant to go
>
> looking, probably it means that if they had to present the University's and
>
> ULAS's case for the dig, they had to justify it primarily in terms of the
>
> search to uncover an important part of Leicester's past, not primarily as a
>
> search for Richard, unlike PL and of course the Society. J
>
> Anyway, although the Town may be thinking of the RIII Trail and such things
>
> as money-makers, the fact is that they are creating memorials, for which
>
> they are spending the money, which are designed to be attractive as well as
>
> educational. Some of the Town worthies certainly have spoken a bit
>
> in-elegantly or crassly, but, hey, they are politicians, we can hardly
>
> expect otherwise, upon occasion. It may be that Leicester, like the rest of
>
> the UK, has been in a bit of a financial crisis, and you can't blame them
>
> for seizing upon the amazing degree of interest worldwide in Richard as a
>
> potential financial windfall. If it is done tastefully, I have no problem
>
> with that, and I don't mind contributing my $$$$, as far as I am able.
>
> As I wrote earlier, what has my nose out of joint is the proposal to put
>
> King Richard under a slab. Bah, humbug, I say! Now, the fact is that there
>
> have been discussions all along about what would happen if Richard was
>
> found. Some of the parties may have thought this to be a hypothetical
>
> exercise, but the RIII Society did run the tomb design by the parties at the
>
> Cathedral, and there was approval, prior to the discovery of the remains. I
>
> think it is very possible that all this was part of the process of inducing
>
> agreement to the dig. That is, perhaps RIII Society indicated that it would
>
> be agreeable, yes, if RIII were found, that he would be reinterred close by.
>
> I would make it clear, I am speculating about that, but also, it was made
>
> clear in previous press releases, articles and such, that in the case of
>
> human remains which are excavated in a dig, the approved practice is
>
> reinterment in the nearest consecrated ground. They indicated that this is
>
> what has been decided in the case of Richard. I think it is a different
>
> thing to propose reburying him within the UK. I mean, it's not like his body
>
> is lying somewhere halfway around the world or anything. Leicester is the
>
> approximate center of Richard's kingdom, an area he knew well; he had been
>
> there on occasions prior to 1485. It is also *not* the "South" of England,
>
> though personally I have nothing against the South - but I understand that
>
> the Midlands is indeed a sort of a mediator between South and North of
>
> England linguistically as well as geographically. Richard was born and
>
> raised at Fotheringhay, then at Ludlow, then abroad, then at London, and
>
> only later did he go to Yorkshire, to live and train under Warwick at
>
> Middleham. However, to the best of my knowledge, he never lived at York.
>
> Yes, Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales there, but he was
>
> buried elsewhere. (Speaking of which, did the Yorkshire worthies carefully
>
> tend and preserve EoM's grave?)
>
> As I was getting to, I personally have my nose out of joint because of the
>
> recent thing from the Interim Dean at Leicester about Richard's honourable
>
> and dishonourable characteristics, and the slab thing. So, I think it is
>
> natural for people like me to react emotionally and to then question the
>
> whole process of the approval. But, the fact is that the remains were not
>
> identified when the license to exhume was applied for, the fact is that they
>
> only applied for the license because at that point they figured it was
>
> Richard. Yes, perhaps the process is flawed. But I'm not sure that it is
>
> invalid, no matter what our gripes. Frankly, however, I am personally
>
> prepared to boycott the Cathedral and perhaps Leicester as a whole if
>
> Richard is not accorded a proper tomb and other dignity that he deserves.
>
> And I would be prepared to support a cenotaph at York or elsewhere which
>
> would be a monument such as Richard richly deserves.
>
> (There are probably more thoughts of this which escape me for the time
>
> being. J)
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
>
> or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> _____
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(1329ulvie(gid$cf022540-b499-11e2-91b1-0f05ce098648,st$1367658347055915,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121qaa4e8,aid$.ad3b2KL4J0-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
> _____
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(1329ulvie(gid$cf022540-b499-11e2-91b1-0f05ce098648,st$1367658347055915,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121t4hhp2,aid$1O53b2KL4J0-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdG8xcjRhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3NjU4MzQ2> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest • <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe • <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use • <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=35009/stime=1367658346/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It is tragic so much history/historic buildings destroyed in so many places. It really does break my heart. Once a building has been destroyed it remains destroyed....and what these historic buildings have been replaced with?...well its really hard to comprehend how it was allowed to happen. With regards to London many photos were taken just prior to demolition which on one hand give thanks for or on the other hand it only adds to the despair of knowing how much we have lost...ooooooop rant over...Eileen

--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> My maternal grandmother came from several generations of Gloucestershire people, my mother was born nearby and I spent my teens in the area - and have to agree about Gloucester. Unfortunately, a lot of smaller British cities seem to me to be this way - they were destroyed by town planners in the 60s or earlier (it's not just the war to blame, even in the case of Coventry, a lot of which was ripped down in the 30s) and have never recovered. I was in the centre of Bradford the other day with someone who commented on how depressed it is, how empty of people and life, and both Coventry and Gloucester were mentioned as well.
> There's a north/south divide, but some bits of the "north" are also in the south (and definitely in London), and vice versa. 
>
> --- On Fri, 3/5/13, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one meaning
> To:
> Date: Friday, 3 May, 2013, 21:40
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes Ive been to Sutton Cheney, twice, both times I visited the battlefield. Very, very moving.
>
>
>
> I think this is what might well happen, that after visiting Richard's tomb people will travel a little further on to the battlefield and/or Sutton Cheney. I guess we will just have to see how it pans out...
>
>
>
> I think the trouble is that Leicester lacks the ambience of other cathedral cities. Canterbury, York, Lincoln, Norwich and others have lots more to see/do plus lovely places to eat. I can remember though being really, really disappointed with Gloucester, not the cathedral which is magnificent. Maybe it was badly bombed in the war...but there is really not that much which is old left now...
>
> eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: EileenB
>
> > To:
>
> > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:39 PM
>
> > Subject: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one
>
> > meaning
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Are the Roman remains on display?
>
> >
>
> > I don't know if you can see any of the ruins in situ, since they're in the
>
> > middle of the town - but there's a wee museum devoted to them.
>
> >
>
> > [The university won an award for architecture, btw - but in the 1970s, which
>
> > probably tells you all you need to know.]
>
> >
>
> > And of course, for the Ricardian visitor there's a pilgrimage to nearby
>
> > Sutton Cheney - which is lovely.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Johanne,    Not to keep pursuing this, but I think that one of the key points about the funding is that the money which both Leicester University and the City Council are spending comes from national taxation and so on - not specifically from the city itself - which is why people feel there is a broader, national claim to a say in all this. In the UK, universities started life as local colleges and retain the name of the city they are in, but they draw students and staff from all over the country and world, and funding as well. 
Ironically - and this is not germane to the discussion here - a lot of cities harbour resentments towards their universities and students, especially in places where the students are seen as enjoying a certain level of privilege which most people can't attain - and also as influencing the outcome of local elections in a way the townspeople don't like. I've heard people who were once students refer to rough pubs in any city as "towny" ones, and when I was a student there were definitely pubs which were town only and others which were student only, and there used to be occasional battles between university boys and assorted lads from the city and other towns around it. But, when ANY University makes an important breakthrough, suddenly the whole town loves it and claims it as its own again! :-)
I agree with what you say about how people should not hold personal animosity in debate. It is easy to debate with friends face to face, and to have really huge differences of opinion on intellectual or even political questions, bluntly expressed, but sometimes on email or the internet it can come out more strongly than it might in person, and lead to unfortunate disputes. 
J. :-) 
--- On Sat, 4/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
To:
Date: Saturday, 4 May, 2013, 12:54
















 









Dear Janet & Everyone 



Still the fact is that, so far as I know, except for private contributions to the Search for King Richard that would have been made through the RIII Society, York has expended nothing in that endeavour. It was entirely PL's project, and it was she who assembled the team which got the job done. And now, it is also true that, so far as I am aware, the total expenditure (or allocation) of the University and the Town has far exceeded even what the Society has spent toward recovering Richard's remains. One could say that they have adopted Richard as their own.



Now, Eileen may be right that they can't count on the lure of King Richard being a money-maker for them. But  do we really care about whether the Town feels it will make money? I don't think so. But we certainly do care that Richard be reinterred with due solemnity and that he have a fitting tomb. It is positive, I think, that the Town wants to link together sites that will encourage Ricardians and other interested people to linger in the area, to visit more sites, like the Castle Gardens and the Guildhall, and the new museum/exhibit dedicated to Richard which will be open by next May, 2014, in addition to the site where Richard's body was found and the Cathedral itself  to me, all of that is a very positive sign. In contrast to the excitement and enthusiasm of the Town fathers of Leicester with plans for enhancing the Richard III experience, I have heard nothing from York (publicly) as to whether they would accept his remains for
reburial and, if they did, how they would propose to memorialize him.



I am glad that Richard is fondly remembered in York. There is no reason that he shouldn't continue to be fondly remembered, wherever his remains may eventually lie. I think if people really *care,* they might want to consider erection of a cenotaph to Richard's memory, something which, as I mentioned, I would actively support if Richard is not accorded the table tomb that he merits. Every town of any size in Canada has a cenotaph which is in memory of the dead who have fought in the wars, died and been buried elsewhere. The November 11 ceremonies every year are focused on these cenotaphs, a very moving experience indeed.



Regarding my comment about Edward of Middleham, I wasn't being patronizing but pointing out what seems to be fact about monuments like his and Richard's all over England (all over the UK?). . . which is that the graves have rather been forgotten and grown over and lost over time. Nowhere was I suggesting that he be dug up and reburied! (I don't see where you could get that out of what I wrote, honestly.)



Actually, if I were to suggest anything, it might be that it would be nice to have the family reunited in death  but that would mean re-locating and moving Anne as well as EoM, and I don't think that is very likely to happen, though it is probably more feasible with regard to Anne's remains than EoM's, because they at least have an idea where she is interred in the Abbey, whereas with EoM, they don't even know for sure where he was interred. Certainly it would be nice to see a monument of some sort erected to his memory, as there is nothing, so far as I know.



Regarding the comment, which Colyngbourne has made more than once, that Richard had no connection with Leicester, it is significant that Richard used it as his base in the Midlands and went out from there to confront Henry the Tydder. He spent the night there before he went to camp near Bosworth, whether it was at the Castle or the inn. He could have chosen to meet HT anywhere between London and where HT landed in Wales, so I suggest that it was Richard who deemed it especially fitting to meet HT in the center of his kingdom.



Also, regarding the procedure used for the license, my understanding is that they could dig (presumably with permission of the Town), but then when they found the bones, they had to cover them up and apply for permission to exhume. At that point, although it is true that the bones were unidentified, I believe they named six individuals, including Richard, as being likely to have been buried in the Greyfriars Church. Obviously, as I mentioned, the only individual they really wanted to exhume was Richard, and Richard Buckley was amazed that the guy they were looking for was uncovered before they had even established the location of the Friary! People have pointed out that there was no consultation  but I presume that the license to exhume was granted in accordance with established practice and the law as it existed at the time. I don't think you can restrospectively impose a different regime of them just because the discovery was unprecedented. Just
because it was unprecedented doesn't mean the procedure was invalid.



One thing I would ask. I think I've said before, a respected judge of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has cautioned young lawyers many times, Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends. I have always taken that advice to heart, and I have *never* taken personal animosity toward someone just because he/she disagrees with me. But I would ask everyone on whatever side they are on in this dispute to accord others to the benefit of the doubt  for example, that I care as much for King Richard as anyone here but may have a different way of expressing it or may be coming at things from a different perspective.



It is my fondest hope that whatever is done in the end regarding due disposition of King Richard's remains will be the best possible in all the circumstances  whether it's what I seem to be endorsing, or some other resolution.



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 Janet Ashton

Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:06 AM

To:

Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court



Hi Johanne, Yes, I know that Leicester has memorials to Richard - but my point was that so does York and places all over Yorkshire and adjacent counties - which seemed to come as something of a surprise to many people in Leicester and others who supported them.

like Col, I am not sure why anyone would want to dig up poor little Edward of Middleham, and how it reflects badly on them that they didn't!

J.



--- On Fri, 3/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > wrote:



From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >

Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court

To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

Date: Friday, 3 May, 2013, 14:26



Hi, Janet -



You're right, to the best of my knowledge, the statue of Richard at



Leicester, as well as the memorial slab, and the plaque at the Bow Bridge



(?) were provided by the RIII Society. If there was any indication otherwise



in what I wrote it was strictly unintentional. I believe in trying to keep



the arguments on both sides as factual as possible. Otherwise, all we're



doing is "fuzzifying the muddification," as Allan Fotheringham used to say.



J But, nevertheless, Leicester does have King Richard's Road (the road on



which he was brought back to Leicester, probably the same that he rode out



on to battle) and the King Richard III School. There may be other



remembrances as well that I am not aware of, not being either a Leicester



or a UK resident, unfortunately as far as I am concerned. I think the fact



that Leicester is smaller (including the Cathedral) and is not the burial



site of any other kings is a plus for everyone, including celebrating



Richard's memory into the future.



I have followed developments closely, as I mentioned. I have heard Richard



Buckley, head of the archeological team, speak about their involvement in



the search, and have read his statements in recorded interviews. It was not



that they were "reluctant" to get involved with the search for Richard, but



that they felt it was an approximately million-to-one shot that they would



find him. Many times he said, in historical archeology, you don't go looking



for a named individual, and find him. So his justification for the search



was to find out more about the Greyfriars, which was a search that was



likely to be successful. That doesn't mean they were reluctant to go



looking, probably it means that if they had to present the University's and



ULAS's case for the dig, they had to justify it primarily in terms of the



search to uncover an important part of Leicester's past, not primarily as a



search for Richard, unlike PL and of course the Society. J



Anyway, although the Town may be thinking of the RIII Trail and such things



as money-makers, the fact is that they are creating memorials, for which



they are spending the money, which are designed to be attractive as well as



educational. Some of the Town worthies certainly have spoken a bit



in-elegantly or crassly, but, hey, they are politicians, we can hardly



expect otherwise, upon occasion. It may be that Leicester, like the rest of



the UK, has been in a bit of a financial crisis, and you can't blame them



for seizing upon the amazing degree of interest worldwide in Richard as a



potential financial windfall. If it is done tastefully, I have no problem



with that, and I don't mind contributing my $$$$, as far as I am able.



As I wrote earlier, what has my nose out of joint is the proposal to put



King Richard under a slab. Bah, humbug, I say! Now, the fact is that there



have been discussions all along about what would happen if Richard was



found. Some of the parties may have thought this to be a hypothetical



exercise, but the RIII Society did run the tomb design by the parties at the



Cathedral, and there was approval, prior to the discovery of the remains. I



think it is very possible that all this was part of the process of inducing



agreement to the dig. That is, perhaps RIII Society indicated that it would



be agreeable, yes, if RIII were found, that he would be reinterred close by.



I would make it clear, I am speculating about that, but also, it was made



clear in previous press releases, articles and such, that in the case of



human remains which are excavated in a dig, the approved practice is



reinterment in the nearest consecrated ground. They indicated that this is



what has been decided in the case of Richard. I think it is a different



thing to propose reburying him within the UK. I mean, it's not like his body



is lying somewhere halfway around the world or anything. Leicester is the



approximate center of Richard's kingdom, an area he knew well; he had been



there on occasions prior to 1485. It is also *not* the "South" of England,



though personally I have nothing against the South - but I understand that



the Midlands is indeed a sort of a mediator between South and North of



England linguistically as well as geographically. Richard was born and



raised at Fotheringhay, then at Ludlow, then abroad, then at London, and



only later did he go to Yorkshire, to live and train under Warwick at



Middleham. However, to the best of my knowledge, he never lived at York.



Yes, Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales there, but he was



buried elsewhere. (Speaking of which, did the Yorkshire worthies carefully



tend and preserve EoM's grave?)



As I was getting to, I personally have my nose out of joint because of the



recent thing from the Interim Dean at Leicester about Richard's honourable



and dishonourable characteristics, and the slab thing. So, I think it is



natural for people like me to react emotionally and to then question the



whole process of the approval. But, the fact is that the remains were not



identified when the license to exhume was applied for, the fact is that they



only applied for the license because at that point they figured it was



Richard. Yes, perhaps the process is flawed. But I'm not sure that it is



invalid, no matter what our gripes. Frankly, however, I am personally



prepared to boycott the Cathedral and perhaps Leicester as a whole if



Richard is not accorded a proper tomb and other dignity that he deserves.



And I would be prepared to support a cenotaph at York or elsewhere which



would be a monument such as Richard richly deserves.



(There are probably more thoughts of this which escape me for the time



being. J)



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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



Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>



or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>



"With God, all things are possible."



- Jesus of Nazareth



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



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



_____



<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(1329ulvie(gid$cf022540-b499-11e2-91b1-0f05ce098648,st$1367658347055915,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121qaa4e8,aid$.ad3b2KL4J0-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>



_____



<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(1329ulvie(gid$cf022540-b499-11e2-91b1-0f05ce098648,st$1367658347055915,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121t4hhp2,aid$1O53b2KL4J0-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>



<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdG8xcjRhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3NjU4MzQ2> Yahoo! Groups



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



.



<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=35009/stime=1367658346/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>

Hi Forum members,

I feel perplexed about the site of the reburial because my heart says York Minster & my brain says Leicester Cathedral & both say we get only one go at this. If we could be certain that Leicester C will come up with a suitably dignified ceremony & a properly regal table tomb I might be reassured. The idea of a side chapel seems a good one "if" space permits because it would help provide an appropriate atmosphere for contemplation while the rest of the Cathedral space can be used for liturgy and pastoral activities. Nothing new here really but the issue won't leave me alone.
Maybe it's because I've just received the book on the reburial of the Duke of York & Edmund of Rutland.
Have 80 people come forward yet?
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 4 May 2013, at 14:54, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:

> Hi Johanne, Not to keep pursuing this, but I think that one of the key points about the funding is that the money which both Leicester University and the City Council are spending comes from national taxation and so on - not specifically from the city itself - which is why people feel there is a broader, national claim to a say in all this. In the UK, universities started life as local colleges and retain the name of the city they are in, but they draw students and staff from all over the country and world, and funding as well.
> Ironically - and this is not germane to the discussion here - a lot of cities harbour resentments towards their universities and students, especially in places where the students are seen as enjoying a certain level of privilege which most people can't attain - and also as influencing the outcome of local elections in a way the townspeople don't like. I've heard people who were once students refer to rough pubs in any city as "towny" ones, and when I was a student there were definitely pubs which were town only and others which were student only, and there used to be occasional battles between university boys and assorted lads from the city and other towns around it. But, when ANY University makes an important breakthrough, suddenly the whole town loves it and claims it as its own again! :-)
> I agree with what you say about how people should not hold personal animosity in debate. It is easy to debate with friends face to face, and to have really huge differences of opinion on intellectual or even political questions, bluntly expressed, but sometimes on email or the internet it can come out more strongly than it might in person, and lead to unfortunate disputes.
> J. :-)
> --- On Sat, 4/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
> To:
> Date: Saturday, 4 May, 2013, 12:54
>
>
>
> Dear Janet & Everyone 
>
> Still the fact is that, so far as I know, except for private contributions to the Search for King Richard that would have been made through the RIII Society, York has expended nothing in that endeavour. It was entirely PL's project, and it was she who assembled the team which got the job done. And now, it is also true that, so far as I am aware, the total expenditure (or allocation) of the University and the Town has far exceeded even what the Society has spent toward recovering Richard's remains. One could say that they have adopted Richard as their own.
>
> Now, Eileen may be right that they can't count on the lure of King Richard being a money-maker for them. But  do we really care about whether the Town feels it will make money? I don't think so. But we certainly do care that Richard be reinterred with due solemnity and that he have a fitting tomb. It is positive, I think, that the Town wants to link together sites that will encourage Ricardians and other interested people to linger in the area, to visit more sites, like the Castle Gardens and the Guildhall, and the new museum/exhibit dedicated to Richard which will be open by next May, 2014, in addition to the site where Richard's body was found and the Cathedral itself  to me, all of that is a very positive sign. In contrast to the excitement and enthusiasm of the Town fathers of Leicester with plans for enhancing the Richard III experience, I have heard nothing from York (publicly) as to whether they would accept his remains for
> reburial and, if they did, how they would propose to memorialize him.
>
> I am glad that Richard is fondly remembered in York. There is no reason that he shouldn't continue to be fondly remembered, wherever his remains may eventually lie. I think if people really *care,* they might want to consider erection of a cenotaph to Richard's memory, something which, as I mentioned, I would actively support if Richard is not accorded the table tomb that he merits. Every town of any size in Canada has a cenotaph which is in memory of the dead who have fought in the wars, died and been buried elsewhere. The November 11 ceremonies every year are focused on these cenotaphs, a very moving experience indeed.
>
> Regarding my comment about Edward of Middleham, I wasn't being patronizing but pointing out what seems to be fact about monuments like his and Richard's all over England (all over the UK?). . . which is that the graves have rather been forgotten and grown over and lost over time. Nowhere was I suggesting that he be dug up and reburied! (I don't see where you could get that out of what I wrote, honestly.)
>
> Actually, if I were to suggest anything, it might be that it would be nice to have the family reunited in death  but that would mean re-locating and moving Anne as well as EoM, and I don't think that is very likely to happen, though it is probably more feasible with regard to Anne's remains than EoM's, because they at least have an idea where she is interred in the Abbey, whereas with EoM, they don't even know for sure where he was interred. Certainly it would be nice to see a monument of some sort erected to his memory, as there is nothing, so far as I know.
>
> Regarding the comment, which Colyngbourne has made more than once, that Richard had no connection with Leicester, it is significant that Richard used it as his base in the Midlands and went out from there to confront Henry the Tydder. He spent the night there before he went to camp near Bosworth, whether it was at the Castle or the inn. He could have chosen to meet HT anywhere between London and where HT landed in Wales, so I suggest that it was Richard who deemed it especially fitting to meet HT in the center of his kingdom.
>
> Also, regarding the procedure used for the license, my understanding is that they could dig (presumably with permission of the Town), but then when they found the bones, they had to cover them up and apply for permission to exhume. At that point, although it is true that the bones were unidentified, I believe they named six individuals, including Richard, as being likely to have been buried in the Greyfriars Church. Obviously, as I mentioned, the only individual they really wanted to exhume was Richard, and Richard Buckley was amazed that the guy they were looking for was uncovered before they had even established the location of the Friary! People have pointed out that there was no consultation  but I presume that the license to exhume was granted in accordance with established practice and the law as it existed at the time. I don't think you can restrospectively impose a different regime of them just because the discovery was unprecedented. Just
> because it was unprecedented doesn't mean the procedure was invalid.
>
> One thing I would ask. I think I've said before, a respected judge of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has cautioned young lawyers many times, Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends. I have always taken that advice to heart, and I have *never* taken personal animosity toward someone just because he/she disagrees with me. But I would ask everyone on whatever side they are on in this dispute to accord others to the benefit of the doubt  for example, that I care as much for King Richard as anyone here but may have a different way of expressing it or may be coming at things from a different perspective.
>
> It is my fondest hope that whatever is done in the end regarding due disposition of King Richard's remains will be the best possible in all the circumstances  whether it's what I seem to be endorsing, or some other resolution.
>
> 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 Janet Ashton
>
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:06 AM
>
> To:
>
> Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
>
> Hi Johanne, Yes, I know that Leicester has memorials to Richard - but my point was that so does York and places all over Yorkshire and adjacent counties - which seemed to come as something of a surprise to many people in Leicester and others who supported them.
>
> like Col, I am not sure why anyone would want to dig up poor little Edward of Middleham, and how it reflects badly on them that they didn't!
>
> J.
>
> --- On Fri, 3/5/13, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > wrote:
>
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
>
> Subject: RE: King Richard III burial row heads to High Court
>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Date: Friday, 3 May, 2013, 14:26
>
> Hi, Janet -
>
> You're right, to the best of my knowledge, the statue of Richard at
>
> Leicester, as well as the memorial slab, and the plaque at the Bow Bridge
>
> (?) were provided by the RIII Society. If there was any indication otherwise
>
> in what I wrote it was strictly unintentional. I believe in trying to keep
>
> the arguments on both sides as factual as possible. Otherwise, all we're
>
> doing is "fuzzifying the muddification," as Allan Fotheringham used to say.
>
> J But, nevertheless, Leicester does have King Richard's Road (the road on
>
> which he was brought back to Leicester, probably the same that he rode out
>
> on to battle) and the King Richard III School. There may be other
>
> remembrances as well that I am not aware of, not being either a Leicester
>
> or a UK resident, unfortunately as far as I am concerned. I think the fact
>
> that Leicester is smaller (including the Cathedral) and is not the burial
>
> site of any other kings is a plus for everyone, including celebrating
>
> Richard's memory into the future.
>
> I have followed developments closely, as I mentioned. I have heard Richard
>
> Buckley, head of the archeological team, speak about their involvement in
>
> the search, and have read his statements in recorded interviews. It was not
>
> that they were "reluctant" to get involved with the search for Richard, but
>
> that they felt it was an approximately million-to-one shot that they would
>
> find him. Many times he said, in historical archeology, you don't go looking
>
> for a named individual, and find him. So his justification for the search
>
> was to find out more about the Greyfriars, which was a search that was
>
> likely to be successful. That doesn't mean they were reluctant to go
>
> looking, probably it means that if they had to present the University's and
>
> ULAS's case for the dig, they had to justify it primarily in terms of the
>
> search to uncover an important part of Leicester's past, not primarily as a
>
> search for Richard, unlike PL and of course the Society. J
>
> Anyway, although the Town may be thinking of the RIII Trail and such things
>
> as money-makers, the fact is that they are creating memorials, for which
>
> they are spending the money, which are designed to be attractive as well as
>
> educational. Some of the Town worthies certainly have spoken a bit
>
> in-elegantly or crassly, but, hey, they are politicians, we can hardly
>
> expect otherwise, upon occasion. It may be that Leicester, like the rest of
>
> the UK, has been in a bit of a financial crisis, and you can't blame them
>
> for seizing upon the amazing degree of interest worldwide in Richard as a
>
> potential financial windfall. If it is done tastefully, I have no problem
>
> with that, and I don't mind contributing my $$$$, as far as I am able.
>
> As I wrote earlier, what has my nose out of joint is the proposal to put
>
> King Richard under a slab. Bah, humbug, I say! Now, the fact is that there
>
> have been discussions all along about what would happen if Richard was
>
> found. Some of the parties may have thought this to be a hypothetical
>
> exercise, but the RIII Society did run the tomb design by the parties at the
>
> Cathedral, and there was approval, prior to the discovery of the remains. I
>
> think it is very possible that all this was part of the process of inducing
>
> agreement to the dig. That is, perhaps RIII Society indicated that it would
>
> be agreeable, yes, if RIII were found, that he would be reinterred close by.
>
> I would make it clear, I am speculating about that, but also, it was made
>
> clear in previous press releases, articles and such, that in the case of
>
> human remains which are excavated in a dig, the approved practice is
>
> reinterment in the nearest consecrated ground. They indicated that this is
>
> what has been decided in the case of Richard. I think it is a different
>
> thing to propose reburying him within the UK. I mean, it's not like his body
>
> is lying somewhere halfway around the world or anything. Leicester is the
>
> approximate center of Richard's kingdom, an area he knew well; he had been
>
> there on occasions prior to 1485. It is also *not* the "South" of England,
>
> though personally I have nothing against the South - but I understand that
>
> the Midlands is indeed a sort of a mediator between South and North of
>
> England linguistically as well as geographically. Richard was born and
>
> raised at Fotheringhay, then at Ludlow, then abroad, then at London, and
>
> only later did he go to Yorkshire, to live and train under Warwick at
>
> Middleham. However, to the best of my knowledge, he never lived at York.
>
> Yes, Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales there, but he was
>
> buried elsewhere. (Speaking of which, did the Yorkshire worthies carefully
>
> tend and preserve EoM's grave?)
>
> As I was getting to, I personally have my nose out of joint because of the
>
> recent thing from the Interim Dean at Leicester about Richard's honourable
>
> and dishonourable characteristics, and the slab thing. So, I think it is
>
> natural for people like me to react emotionally and to then question the
>
> whole process of the approval. But, the fact is that the remains were not
>
> identified when the license to exhume was applied for, the fact is that they
>
> only applied for the license because at that point they figured it was
>
> Richard. Yes, perhaps the process is flawed. But I'm not sure that it is
>
> invalid, no matter what our gripes. Frankly, however, I am personally
>
> prepared to boycott the Cathedral and perhaps Leicester as a whole if
>
> Richard is not accorded a proper tomb and other dignity that he deserves.
>
> And I would be prepared to support a cenotaph at York or elsewhere which
>
> would be a monument such as Richard richly deserves.
>
> (There are probably more thoughts of this which escape me for the time
>
> being. J)
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
>
> or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> _____
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(1329ulvie(gid$cf022540-b499-11e2-91b1-0f05ce098648,st$1367658347055915,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121qaa4e8,aid$.ad3b2KL4J0-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
> _____
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(1329ulvie(gid$cf022540-b499-11e2-91b1-0f05ce098648,st$1367658347055915,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121t4hhp2,aid$1O53b2KL4J0-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdG8xcjRhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3NjU4MzQ2> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=35009/stime=1367658346/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Jan Mulrenan
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: King Richard III burial row heads
to High Court


> I feel perplexed about the site of the reburial because my heart says York
> Minster & my brain says Leicester Cathedral & both say we get only one go
> at this. If we could be certain that Leicester C will come up with a
> suitably dignified ceremony & a properly regal table tomb I might be
> reassured.

My feelings exactly.

Christine Holmes wrote:


"Hi, Douglas, the church at Fotheringhay is not in ruin, it holds the tombs
of Richard's father, mother and brother Edmund, also a previous member of
the family. It is a lovely church and would be an appropriate place as it
is the House of York family mausoleum, it would certainly be better than
Leicester which has no connection with Richard other than his death near
bye.
I would like it to be York but would have no problems if Fotheringhay were
chosen."

Doug here:
Sorry for the error, I was likely thinking of Middleham!
*If* Leicester does it up properly, I have no problems with Richard being
re-buried there. If not then, yes, Fotheringhay should be considered.
Doug

Claire M Jordan wrote:


"This isn't the case - but space is very tight. So tight that the cathedral
doesn't actually have any parking space that I can see, apart from a tiny
area to the side of the north door which might possibly hold three cars if
they were very closely parked.
If you look at the cathedral in Google's aerial view you'll see that on the
south side of the cathedral there are two areas of grass and bushes, each
about the size of a largeish suburban garden (these are the *only* spaces
around the cathedral - otherwise it's right up against roads or other
properties). The one on the right/east is out because a) it's already been
extensively landscaped and b) there are some graves in it. The one on the
left/west looks possible, however - it seems to be just a plain lawn and a
few bushes.
What I suggested when I wrote to them was turning the space on the left into
a memorial garden commemorating all the dead of Bosworth, surrounding a
small side-chapel containing a table tomb for Richard, with white roses
around the chapel and the pink-and-white-splashed Old Garden Roses called
York-and-Lancaster in the rest of the garden.
However, a chapel on this space *would* be close to the cathedral of
necessity and therefore *would* be at least partially in front of two of the
cathedral's stained-glass windows. But the windows start 7ft from the
ground, so my suggestion was that the chapel should be set down 3ft so that
it doesn't impinge on the windows, and the resultant bank around it turned
into a landscape feature. And the chapel should include a small altar and
some pews, because couples from all over the world will want to marry there.
I can see the visual appeal of a cloister, but if the tomb is exposed to the
elements it isn't going to last all that long, unless it's made of very
durable stone. The rain it raineth every day, remember - nearly literally."

Doug here:
I was hoping I *wouldn't be correct about the "space" problem. Darn!
Then it may very well be it's that lack of space, rather than any disrespect
(intended or not) that explains any "reluctance" on Leicester's part. One
can always hope...
Well, if I can't have a cloister (absolutely, positively no to that idea?),
then a side chapel, which does sound quite nice, it will be (you're
absolutely *sure* about the cloister?). And I do like the suggestion of
white and pink and white roses. They'd look beautiful against the stone,
whatever the weather.
Doug
(who, believe it or not, *had* forgotten how much it rains in the UK!)

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: King Richard III burial row
heads to High Court


> Well, if I can't have a cloister (absolutely, positively no to that
> idea?),
then a side chapel, which does sound quite nice, it will be (you're
absolutely *sure* about the cloister?).

Well, at the cost of sacrificing several trees you *could* have a smallish
cloistered quad on that piece of land south-west of the cathedral, and it
would have the advantage that the cloister could be three-sided with the
cathedral itself making up the fourth, and then you wouldn't have the
problem of a roof-line cutting across the stained-glass windows of the main
building at very close quarters.

I don't think sticking the tomb in the middle would be a terribly good idea
because of the weather - but you could site the tomb under cover in one of
the sides of the cloister, and then have a garden in the central space.

Unfortunately some small towns have been got at by developers too.  The market town I grew up in had lots of 15th and 16th century buildings when I was a child in the 60s but the developers got at them and now it has very little apart from one street near the church and a large timber framed house in the High Street.  Colchester, where I live now, makes a great fuss about being the "oldest recorded town in Britain" because it was mentioned by name by the Romans  but many people have criticised the level of development here in the 60s and 70s.  There "are" Roman remains, including walls, a roman circus, and the army barracks has been more or less on the same site I believe for 2000 years.  The castle was built over the footplate  of the Temple of Claudius and there are some 17th century houses around but considering the history of the town, there should be a lot more.
 
That said a lot of the Suffolk villages and  old wool towns like Lavenham and Clare still have some glorious old buildings. 
 
I suppose we should be glad that at least more recently people have woken up to the beauty of our history but we have lost an awful lot.
 
 


________________________________
From: Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one meaning

 
The small towns are definitely the places to go for aesthetic appeal in England. :-) (as well as countryside)
At least, I mean, the large cities aren't beautiful when you look at the town overall - you can still find beautiful PARTS in large cities, but I find English cities taken as a whole lacking in the same overall dramatic effect as Edinburgh gives (or Prague, or San Francisco, or many other places whose situation also helps them out). 

--- On Sat, 4/5/13, Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> wrote:

From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
Subject: Re: Re: "Interrment" can have more than one meaning
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, 4 May, 2013, 13:06

 

From: Janet Ashton

To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 12:37 PM

Subject: Re: Re: "Interrment" can have more than

one meaning

> I agree about Scotland - I like a number of English cities for their life

> and atmosphere, but none of the big ones are actually *pretty* - whereas,

> to me, Edinburgh and also Glasgow are both beautiful. They both feel

> European, because of the tradition of people living in apartments. A

> friend from Glasgow did take us to Falkirk on one visit, and it's

> stunning.

If you're prepared to accept smaller towns in England, St Albans and

Faversham both have extensive Mediaeval survivals. Faversham has a pub

called The Black Bull which dates back to 1420, and St Albans has a

wonderful abbey and extensive Roman remains - although the best Roman

remains of all are in the neighbouring towns of Caerwent and Carleon in

South Wales.

And of course Canterbury has an extensive surviving Mediaeval quarter

surrounding the cathedral. Rochester too is lovely, with a terrific (if

ruined) Mediaeval castle.

A new update:

Richard III burial row campaigners march through York

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22425470


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To:
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 5:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: King Richard III burial row
> heads to High Court
>
>
> > Well, if I can't have a cloister (absolutely, positively no to that
> > idea?),
> then a side chapel, which does sound quite nice, it will be (you're
> absolutely *sure* about the cloister?).
>
> Well, at the cost of sacrificing several trees you *could* have a smallish
> cloistered quad on that piece of land south-west of the cathedral, and it
> would have the advantage that the cloister could be three-sided with the
> cathedral itself making up the fourth, and then you wouldn't have the
> problem of a roof-line cutting across the stained-glass windows of the main
> building at very close quarters.
>
> I don't think sticking the tomb in the middle would be a terribly good idea
> because of the weather - but you could site the tomb under cover in one of
> the sides of the cloister, and then have a garden in the central space.
>

I wish this Ms Roe would stop saying Richard wanted to be buried at York!


________________________________
 hli4 <hli4@...>


 
A new update:

Richard III burial row campaigners march through York

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22425470

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To:
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 5:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: King Richard III burial row
> heads to High Court
>
>
> > Well, if I can't have a cloister (absolutely, positively no to that
> > idea?),
> then a side chapel, which does sound quite nice, it will be (you're
> absolutely *sure* about the cloister?).
>
> Well, at the cost of sacrificing several trees you *could* have a smallish
> cloistered quad on that piece of land south-west of the cathedral, and it
> would have the advantage that the cloister could be three-sided with the
> cathedral itself making up the fourth, and then you wouldn't have the
> problem of a roof-line cutting across the stained-glass windows of the main
> building at very close quarters.
>
> I don't think sticking the tomb in the middle would be a terribly good idea
> because of the weather - but you could site the tomb under cover in one of
> the sides of the cloister, and then have a garden in the central space.
>