York

A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
'ragbag' was her word.
Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
"family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

The trouble is that when someone dies they usually have loved ones/family/friends who will decide what is appropriate for their lost one and will usually have an insight into what that person would have wanted. The problem here is that the hierarchy who are in control and making the decisions for Richard's burial, when it comes down to it, know sweet fanny adams about our friend aside from what they may have gleaned from Shakespeare/Thomas More. Thus they have no real feeling for Richard..no passion...they have not grasped the essence of the man. In fact after what I have read the hierarchy at LC may actually believe still that he was a *bad* man and thus they are probably thinking more than likely murdered his nephews. This is the tragedy of it all. I fervently hope that they take on board the latest statement from the Society...a link to which was posted on here...because the Socity are probably the closed thing that Richard has to family now...eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
> 'ragbag' was her word.
> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Well said Eileen!



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: York


 

The trouble is that when someone dies they usually have loved ones/family/friends who will decide what is appropriate for their lost one and will usually have an insight into what that person would have wanted. The problem here is that the hierarchy who are in control and making the decisions for Richard's burial, when it comes down to it, know sweet fanny adams about our friend aside from what they may have gleaned from Shakespeare/Thomas More. Thus they have no real feeling for Richard..no passion...they have not grasped the essence of the man. In fact after what I have read the hierarchy at LC may actually believe still that he was a *bad* man and thus they are probably thinking more than likely murdered his nephews. This is the tragedy of it all. I fervently hope that they take on board the latest statement from the Society...a link to which was posted on here...because the Socity are probably the closed thing that Richard has to family
now...eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
> 'ragbag' was her word.
> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Why thank you me dear...:0)

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Well said Eileen!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: York
>
>
>  
>
> The trouble is that when someone dies they usually have loved ones/family/friends who will decide what is appropriate for their lost one and will usually have an insight into what that person would have wanted. The problem here is that the hierarchy who are in control and making the decisions for Richard's burial, when it comes down to it, know sweet fanny adams about our friend aside from what they may have gleaned from Shakespeare/Thomas More. Thus they have no real feeling for Richard..no passion...they have not grasped the essence of the man. In fact after what I have read the hierarchy at LC may actually believe still that he was a *bad* man and thus they are probably thinking more than likely murdered his nephews. This is the tragedy of it all. I fervently hope that they take on board the latest statement from the Society...a link to which was posted on here...because the Socity are probably the closed thing that Richard has to family
> now...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
> > group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
> > demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
> > 'ragbag' was her word.
> > Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
> > Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
> > "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Has anyone ever heard of Vanessa Roe before all this fuss she is
stirring up in York?
Someone so loud in demanding something for Richard must surely be very
involved in Ricardian affairs?
Paul

On 07/05/2013 15:10, EileenB wrote:
> The trouble is that when someone dies they usually have loved ones/family/friends who will decide what is appropriate for their lost one and will usually have an insight into what that person would have wanted. The problem here is that the hierarchy who are in control and making the decisions for Richard's burial, when it comes down to it, know sweet fanny adams about our friend aside from what they may have gleaned from Shakespeare/Thomas More. Thus they have no real feeling for Richard..no passion...they have not grasped the essence of the man. In fact after what I have read the hierarchy at LC may actually believe still that he was a *bad* man and thus they are probably thinking more than likely murdered his nephews. This is the tragedy of it all. I fervently hope that they take on board the latest statement from the Society...a link to which was posted on here...because the Socity are probably the closed thing that Richard has to family now...eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
>> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
>> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
>> 'ragbag' was her word.
>> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
>> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
>> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

In a word - NO!
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: Re: York



Has anyone ever heard of Vanessa Roe before all this fuss she is
stirring up in York?
Someone so loud in demanding something for Richard must surely be very
involved in Ricardian affairs?
Paul

On 07/05/2013 15:10, EileenB wrote:
> The trouble is that when someone dies they usually have loved ones/family/friends who will decide what is appropriate for their lost one and will usually have an insight into what that person would have wanted. The problem here is that the hierarchy who are in control and making the decisions for Richard's burial, when it comes down to it, know sweet fanny adams about our friend aside from what they may have gleaned from Shakespeare/Thomas More. Thus they have no real feeling for Richard..no passion...they have not grasped the essence of the man. In fact after what I have read the hierarchy at LC may actually believe still that he was a *bad* man and thus they are probably thinking more than likely murdered his nephews. This is the tragedy of it all. I fervently hope that they take on board the latest statement from the Society...a link to which was posted on here...because the Socity are probably the closed thing that Richard has to family now...eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
>> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
>> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
>> 'ragbag' was her word.
>> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
>> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
>> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

"Roe" sounds suspiciously like one of those names used for unknown or anonymous people...

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Re: York



 
In a word - NO!
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: Re: York

Has anyone ever heard of Vanessa Roe before all this fuss she is
stirring up in York?
Someone so loud in demanding something for Richard must surely be very
involved in Ricardian affairs?
Paul

On 07/05/2013 15:10, EileenB wrote:
> The trouble is that when someone dies they usually have loved ones/family/friends who will decide what is appropriate for their lost one and will usually have an insight into what that person would have wanted. The problem here is that the hierarchy who are in control and making the decisions for Richard's burial, when it comes down to it, know sweet fanny adams about our friend aside from what they may have gleaned from Shakespeare/Thomas More. Thus they have no real feeling for Richard..no passion...they have not grasped the essence of the man. In fact after what I have read the hierarchy at LC may actually believe still that he was a *bad* man and thus they are probably thinking more than likely murdered his nephews. This is the tragedy of it all. I fervently hope that they take on board the latest statement from the Society...a link to which was posted on here...because the Socity are probably the closed thing that Richard has to family now...eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
>> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
>> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
>> 'ragbag' was her word.
>> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
>> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
>> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Like in Roe vs. Wade????

On May 7, 2013, at 12:24 PM, "Judy Thomson" <judygerard.thomson@...<mailto:judygerard.thomson@...>> wrote:



"Roe" sounds suspiciously like one of those names used for unknown or anonymous people...

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Re: York



In a word - NO!
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: Re: York

Has anyone ever heard of Vanessa Roe before all this fuss she is
stirring up in York?
Someone so loud in demanding something for Richard must surely be very
involved in Ricardian affairs?
Paul

On 07/05/2013 15:10, EileenB wrote:
> The trouble is that when someone dies they usually have loved ones/family/friends who will decide what is appropriate for their lost one and will usually have an insight into what that person would have wanted. The problem here is that the hierarchy who are in control and making the decisions for Richard's burial, when it comes down to it, know sweet fanny adams about our friend aside from what they may have gleaned from Shakespeare/Thomas More. Thus they have no real feeling for Richard..no passion...they have not grasped the essence of the man. In fact after what I have read the hierarchy at LC may actually believe still that he was a *bad* man and thus they are probably thinking more than likely murdered his nephews. This is the tragedy of it all. I fervently hope that they take on board the latest statement from the Society...a link to which was posted on here...because the Socity are probably the closed thing that Richard has to family now...eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
>> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
>> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
>> 'ragbag' was her word.
>> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
>> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
>> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Yes. As I recall, that was the girl's alias, as she feared retribution. 

And "Vanessa" is a popular name. Just a thought, as no one's heard of the woman...

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Re: York


Like in Roe vs. Wade????

On May 7, 2013, at 12:24 PM, "Judy Thomson" <judygerard.thomson@...<mailto:judygerard.thomson@...>> wrote:



"Roe" sounds suspiciously like one of those names used for unknown or anonymous people...

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Re: York



In a word - NO!
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: Re: York

Has anyone ever heard of Vanessa Roe before all this fuss she is
stirring up in York?
Someone so loud in demanding something for Richard must surely be very
involved in Ricardian affairs?
Paul

On 07/05/2013 15:10, EileenB wrote:
> The trouble is that when someone dies they usually have loved ones/family/friends who will decide what is appropriate for their lost one and will usually have an insight into what that person would have wanted. The problem here is that the hierarchy who are in control and making the decisions for Richard's burial, when it comes down to it, know sweet fanny adams about our friend aside from what they may have gleaned from Shakespeare/Thomas More. Thus they have no real feeling for Richard..no passion...they have not grasped the essence of the man. In fact after what I have read the hierarchy at LC may actually believe still that he was a *bad* man and thus they are probably thinking more than likely murdered his nephews. This is the tragedy of it all. I fervently hope that they take on board the latest statement from the Society...a link to which was posted on here...because the Socity are probably the closed thing that Richard has to family now...eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
>> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
>> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
>> 'ragbag' was her word.
>> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
>> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
>> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!













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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I'm sorry your friend thought the procession looked "rag-bag" - perhaps she would have wanted something more regimented or streamlined, or only people wearing genuine authentic late C15th costumes. What we had was a group of very passionate Ricardians from all corners of the country, some members of the Society, some members of the Friends of RIII, some members of both, and some people who are fully Ricardian without paying subs to any society - some of whom might join the Society, and some of whom most definitely don't want to for a number of very valid reasons.

As I posted yesterday, and have on previous occasions (though I know we won't agree on this) - it is the belief of several medieval historians who have studied Richard's life and times, that York would have been his likely mausoleum. The Society yesterday posted in the Leicester Press (but not anywhere else!!!) their response to the design brief, and included in their wishes for a table tomb, was the reason that Richard would have intended a table tomb for himself in a separate chantry. Well, a fabulously immense chantry is exactly what was being planned for at York, whilst he was King, so this is a pretty good indication that it *might well have been* his intended mausoleum. I don't understand the lack of joined-up thinking on this score.

In York, the public were very supportive and interested and several hundred people signed a petition for the campaign to bring Richard back to York. The BBC and ITN press were also very keen, so much so that the ITN reporter and photographer stayed with the procession for well over its 2 hours of duration, and press coverage has been very positive.

Your friend might have used the word "rag-bag" but I think (and many others have commented to me) that we looked not pathetic, but rather fabulous - there were an array of Ricardian flags, Ricardian t-shirts and boar badges, and white roses, and some "medieval-style" costumes, and lots of enthusiasm from people who felt genuinely part of a cause and a concern, one that centred (as many people who spoke to me, indicated) on "moral justice". Some people in other parts of the UK had heard about it on the morning news and had jumped in their cars to come and support it. One person had driven up from Devon that morning.

The "so-called" family members - you ask 'are they Ricardians'? Ricardians in what sense? As paid up members of the Society? As people with a concern for the reputation of the man who is part of their ancestral lineage? And what would they need to do to "prove" themselves, somehow? And as for band-waggoning, there is no advantage here but for Richard to be re-interred in York. These people are committing themselves financially so that Richard can be re-interred in a place he might well have chosen for himself.

We may disagree on the location and our reasoning for it, but I think it is unreasonable to disparage those who are campaigning for York.

Col

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
> 'ragbag' was her word.
> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

I have both heard of her, and met her, and spoke at some length with her yesterday.

I find it rather unimpressive that some posts here imagine that "Vanessa Roe" is a made-up name, and being deliberately used by a woman who is actually a part of a very serious legal challenge to a very dubious licence - a licence to re-inter "unknown persons" in a place that would almost certainly not have been the place of the deceased's choosing.

Col



--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Yes. As I recall, that was the girl's alias, as she feared retribution. 
>
> And "Vanessa" is a popular name. Just a thought, as no one's heard of the woman...
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: York
>
>
> Like in Roe vs. Wade????
>
> On May 7, 2013, at 12:24 PM, "Judy Thomson" <judygerard.thomson@...<mailto:judygerard.thomson@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Roe" sounds suspiciously like one of those names used for unknown or anonymous people...
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: York
>
>
>
> In a word - NO!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: York
>
> Has anyone ever heard of Vanessa Roe before all this fuss she is
> stirring up in York?
> Someone so loud in demanding something for Richard must surely be very
> involved in Ricardian affairs?
> Paul
>
> On 07/05/2013 15:10, EileenB wrote:
> > The trouble is that when someone dies they usually have loved ones/family/friends who will decide what is appropriate for their lost one and will usually have an insight into what that person would have wanted. The problem here is that the hierarchy who are in control and making the decisions for Richard's burial, when it comes down to it, know sweet fanny adams about our friend aside from what they may have gleaned from Shakespeare/Thomas More. Thus they have no real feeling for Richard..no passion...they have not grasped the essence of the man. In fact after what I have read the hierarchy at LC may actually believe still that he was a *bad* man and thus they are probably thinking more than likely murdered his nephews. This is the tragedy of it all. I fervently hope that they take on board the latest statement from the Society...a link to which was posted on here...because the Socity are probably the closed thing that Richard has to family now...eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
> >> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
> >> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
> >> 'ragbag' was her word.
> >> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
> >> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
> >> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Well, now we know.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: York



 
I have both heard of her, and met her, and spoke at some length with her yesterday.

I find it rather unimpressive that some posts here imagine that "Vanessa Roe" is a made-up name, and being deliberately used by a woman who is actually a part of a very serious legal challenge to a very dubious licence - a licence to re-inter "unknown persons" in a place that would almost certainly not have been the place of the deceased's choosing.

Col

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Yes. As I recall, that was the girl's alias, as she feared retribution. 
>
> And "Vanessa" is a popular name. Just a thought, as no one's heard of the woman...
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: York
>
>
> Like in Roe vs. Wade????
>
> On May 7, 2013, at 12:24 PM, "Judy Thomson" <judygerard.thomson@...<mailto:judygerard.thomson@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Roe" sounds suspiciously like one of those names used for unknown or anonymous people...
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: York
>
>
>
> In a word - NO!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: York
>
> Has anyone ever heard of Vanessa Roe before all this fuss she is
> stirring up in York?
> Someone so loud in demanding something for Richard must surely be very
> involved in Ricardian affairs?
> Paul
>
> On 07/05/2013 15:10, EileenB wrote:
> > The trouble is that when someone dies they usually have loved ones/family/friends who will decide what is appropriate for their lost one and will usually have an insight into what that person would have wanted. The problem here is that the hierarchy who are in control and making the decisions for Richard's burial, when it comes down to it, know sweet fanny adams about our friend aside from what they may have gleaned from Shakespeare/Thomas More. Thus they have no real feeling for Richard..no passion...they have not grasped the essence of the man. In fact after what I have read the hierarchy at LC may actually believe still that he was a *bad* man and thus they are probably thinking more than likely murdered his nephews. This is the tragedy of it all. I fervently hope that they take on board the latest statement from the Society...a link to which was posted on here...because the Socity are probably the closed thing that Richard has to family
now...eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
> >> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
> >> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
> >> 'ragbag' was her word.
> >> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
> >> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
> >> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

I agree Richard should be buried in York, especially if Leicester won't even give him a proper tomb.

But Leicester [university, city, cathedral] seems to have such a strong hold on his remains and burial plans, and gives a strong impression of inevitability about the whole matter, and ridicules anyone who challenge the issue. I wonder if people just bought the p.r. and don't want to fight a losing cause.

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry your friend thought the procession looked "rag-bag" - perhaps she would have wanted something more regimented or streamlined, or only people wearing genuine authentic late C15th costumes. What we had was a group of very passionate Ricardians from all corners of the country, some members of the Society, some members of the Friends of RIII, some members of both, and some people who are fully Ricardian without paying subs to any society - some of whom might join the Society, and some of whom most definitely don't want to for a number of very valid reasons.
>
> As I posted yesterday, and have on previous occasions (though I know we won't agree on this) - it is the belief of several medieval historians who have studied Richard's life and times, that York would have been his likely mausoleum. The Society yesterday posted in the Leicester Press (but not anywhere else!!!) their response to the design brief, and included in their wishes for a table tomb, was the reason that Richard would have intended a table tomb for himself in a separate chantry. Well, a fabulously immense chantry is exactly what was being planned for at York, whilst he was King, so this is a pretty good indication that it *might well have been* his intended mausoleum. I don't understand the lack of joined-up thinking on this score.
>
> In York, the public were very supportive and interested and several hundred people signed a petition for the campaign to bring Richard back to York. The BBC and ITN press were also very keen, so much so that the ITN reporter and photographer stayed with the procession for well over its 2 hours of duration, and press coverage has been very positive.
>
> Your friend might have used the word "rag-bag" but I think (and many others have commented to me) that we looked not pathetic, but rather fabulous - there were an array of Ricardian flags, Ricardian t-shirts and boar badges, and white roses, and some "medieval-style" costumes, and lots of enthusiasm from people who felt genuinely part of a cause and a concern, one that centred (as many people who spoke to me, indicated) on "moral justice". Some people in other parts of the UK had heard about it on the morning news and had jumped in their cars to come and support it. One person had driven up from Devon that morning.
>
> The "so-called" family members - you ask 'are they Ricardians'? Ricardians in what sense? As paid up members of the Society? As people with a concern for the reputation of the man who is part of their ancestral lineage? And what would they need to do to "prove" themselves, somehow? And as for band-waggoning, there is no advantage here but for Richard to be re-interred in York. These people are committing themselves financially so that Richard can be re-interred in a place he might well have chosen for himself.
>
> We may disagree on the location and our reasoning for it, but I think it is unreasonable to disparage those who are campaigning for York.
>
> Col
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
> > group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
> > demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
> > 'ragbag' was her word.
> > Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
> > Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
> > "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

Confirmation that a) she exists and b) has spoken to one of our members. And one person's rag-tag, is the other person's group of like minded people with allied points of view. I just want King Richard to be reinterred in the way a King do England should be. And wherever that is, I plan on visiting.

On May 7, 2013, at 2:45 PM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



I have both heard of her, and met her, and spoke at some length with her yesterday.

I find it rather unimpressive that some posts here imagine that "Vanessa Roe" is a made-up name, and being deliberately used by a woman who is actually a part of a very serious legal challenge to a very dubious licence - a licence to re-inter "unknown persons" in a place that would almost certainly not have been the place of the deceased's choosing.

Col

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Yes. As I recall, that was the girl's alias, as she feared retribution.
>
> And "Vanessa" is a popular name. Just a thought, as no one's heard of the woman...
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: York
>
>
> Like in Roe vs. Wade????
>
> On May 7, 2013, at 12:24 PM, "Judy Thomson" <judygerard.thomson@...<mailto:judygerard.thomson@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Roe" sounds suspiciously like one of those names used for unknown or anonymous people...
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net<http://40talktalk.net>>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: York
>
>
>
> In a word - NO!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: York
>
> Has anyone ever heard of Vanessa Roe before all this fuss she is
> stirring up in York?
> Someone so loud in demanding something for Richard must surely be very
> involved in Ricardian affairs?
> Paul
>
> On 07/05/2013 15:10, EileenB wrote:
> > The trouble is that when someone dies they usually have loved ones/family/friends who will decide what is appropriate for their lost one and will usually have an insight into what that person would have wanted. The problem here is that the hierarchy who are in control and making the decisions for Richard's burial, when it comes down to it, know sweet fanny adams about our friend aside from what they may have gleaned from Shakespeare/Thomas More. Thus they have no real feeling for Richard..no passion...they have not grasped the essence of the man. In fact after what I have read the hierarchy at LC may actually believe still that he was a *bad* man and thus they are probably thinking more than likely murdered his nephews. This is the tragedy of it all. I fervently hope that they take on board the latest statement from the Society...a link to which was posted on here...because the Socity are probably the closed thing that Richard has to family now...eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
> >> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
> >> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
> >> 'ragbag' was her word.
> >> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
> >> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
> >> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Oh my silly fingers + the iPad imp, that should have read King of England. Sorry........
OT, sort of...... My hubby and are at looking at European River cruises. I found one today which starts in Gloucester and cruises the Severn River.


On May 7, 2013, at 2:57 PM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...> wrote:

> Confirmation that a) she exists and b) has spoken to one of our members. And one person's rag-tag, is the other person's group of like minded people with allied points of view. I just want King Richard to be reinterred in the way a King do England should be. And wherever that is, I plan on visiting.
>
> On May 7, 2013, at 2:45 PM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I have both heard of her, and met her, and spoke at some length with her yesterday.
>
> I find it rather unimpressive that some posts here imagine that "Vanessa Roe" is a made-up name, and being deliberately used by a woman who is actually a part of a very serious legal challenge to a very dubious licence - a licence to re-inter "unknown persons" in a place that would almost certainly not have been the place of the deceased's choosing.
>
> Col
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes. As I recall, that was the girl's alias, as she feared retribution.
>>
>> And "Vanessa" is a popular name. Just a thought, as no one's heard of the woman...
>>
>> Judy
>>
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
>> To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: York
>>
>>
>> Like in Roe vs. Wade????
>>
>> On May 7, 2013, at 12:24 PM, "Judy Thomson" <judygerard.thomson@...<mailto:judygerard.thomson@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Roe" sounds suspiciously like one of those names used for unknown or anonymous people...
>>
>> Judy
>>
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net<http://40talktalk.net>>>
>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: York
>>
>>
>>
>> In a word - NO!
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 5:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: York
>>
>> Has anyone ever heard of Vanessa Roe before all this fuss she is
>> stirring up in York?
>> Someone so loud in demanding something for Richard must surely be very
>> involved in Ricardian affairs?
>> Paul
>>
>> On 07/05/2013 15:10, EileenB wrote:
>>> The trouble is that when someone dies they usually have loved ones/family/friends who will decide what is appropriate for their lost one and will usually have an insight into what that person would have wanted. The problem here is that the hierarchy who are in control and making the decisions for Richard's burial, when it comes down to it, know sweet fanny adams about our friend aside from what they may have gleaned from Shakespeare/Thomas More. Thus they have no real feeling for Richard..no passion...they have not grasped the essence of the man. In fact after what I have read the hierarchy at LC may actually believe still that he was a *bad* man and thus they are probably thinking more than likely murdered his nephews. This is the tragedy of it all. I fervently hope that they take on board the latest statement from the Society...a link to which was posted on here...because the Socity are probably the closed thing that Richard has to family now...eileen
>>>
>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
>>>> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
>>>> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
>>>> 'ragbag' was her word.
>>>> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
>>>> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
>>>> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Yes, Eileen. Very true.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 7, 2013, at 10:10 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> The trouble is that when someone dies they usually have loved ones/family/friends who will decide what is appropriate for their lost one and will usually have an insight into what that person would have wanted. The problem here is that the hierarchy who are in control and making the decisions for Richard's burial, when it comes down to it, know sweet fanny adams about our friend aside from what they may have gleaned from Shakespeare/Thomas More. Thus they have no real feeling for Richard..no passion...they have not grasped the essence of the man. In fact after what I have read the hierarchy at LC may actually believe still that he was a *bad* man and thus they are probably thinking more than likely murdered his nephews. This is the tragedy of it all. I fervently hope that they take on board the latest statement from the Society...a link to which was posted on here...because the Socity are probably the closed thing that Richard has to family now...eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >
> > A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
> > group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
> > demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
> > 'ragbag' was her word.
> > Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
> > Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
> > "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>

Hello Paul, how much do you know about these people, do you know who they are, have you any evidence for what you say about them?
Regards
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
> 'ragbag' was her word.
> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Thank you Colyngbourne, glad someone understands about York and this rubbish about people jumping on a band wagon, these people care about Richard as do I and I will support them all the way to Europe if needed.
We may fail but at least we will have fought for Richard and not betrayed him again and yes I do feel very strongly about Richard have no doubt about that.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie.

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry your friend thought the procession looked "rag-bag" - perhaps she would have wanted something more regimented or streamlined, or only people wearing genuine authentic late C15th costumes. What we had was a group of very passionate Ricardians from all corners of the country, some members of the Society, some members of the Friends of RIII, some members of both, and some people who are fully Ricardian without paying subs to any society - some of whom might join the Society, and some of whom most definitely don't want to for a number of very valid reasons.
>
> As I posted yesterday, and have on previous occasions (though I know we won't agree on this) - it is the belief of several medieval historians who have studied Richard's life and times, that York would have been his likely mausoleum. The Society yesterday posted in the Leicester Press (but not anywhere else!!!) their response to the design brief, and included in their wishes for a table tomb, was the reason that Richard would have intended a table tomb for himself in a separate chantry. Well, a fabulously immense chantry is exactly what was being planned for at York, whilst he was King, so this is a pretty good indication that it *might well have been* his intended mausoleum. I don't understand the lack of joined-up thinking on this score.
>
> In York, the public were very supportive and interested and several hundred people signed a petition for the campaign to bring Richard back to York. The BBC and ITN press were also very keen, so much so that the ITN reporter and photographer stayed with the procession for well over its 2 hours of duration, and press coverage has been very positive.
>
> Your friend might have used the word "rag-bag" but I think (and many others have commented to me) that we looked not pathetic, but rather fabulous - there were an array of Ricardian flags, Ricardian t-shirts and boar badges, and white roses, and some "medieval-style" costumes, and lots of enthusiasm from people who felt genuinely part of a cause and a concern, one that centred (as many people who spoke to me, indicated) on "moral justice". Some people in other parts of the UK had heard about it on the morning news and had jumped in their cars to come and support it. One person had driven up from Devon that morning.
>
> The "so-called" family members - you ask 'are they Ricardians'? Ricardians in what sense? As paid up members of the Society? As people with a concern for the reputation of the man who is part of their ancestral lineage? And what would they need to do to "prove" themselves, somehow? And as for band-waggoning, there is no advantage here but for Richard to be re-interred in York. These people are committing themselves financially so that Richard can be re-interred in a place he might well have chosen for himself.
>
> We may disagree on the location and our reasoning for it, but I think it is unreasonable to disparage those who are campaigning for York.
>
> Col
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
> > group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
> > demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
> > 'ragbag' was her word.
> > Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
> > Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
> > "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

One's man rubbish is another's viewpoint. Please be careful about the
language you use when criticising other members ideas.
And if you read what I posted originally I said friend of mine told me,
so I was simply passing along what she said. Oh and she is a northerner,
and a Ricardian who spends as much time in York as she can.
Paul

On 08/05/2013 10:34, christineholmes651@... wrote:
>
> Thank you Colyngbourne, glad someone understands about York and this rubbish about people jumping on a band wagon, these people care about Richard as do I and I will support them all the way to Europe if needed.
> We may fail but at least we will have fought for Richard and not betrayed him again and yes I do feel very strongly about Richard have no doubt about that.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie.
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>> I'm sorry your friend thought the procession looked "rag-bag" - perhaps she would have wanted something more regimented or streamlined, or only people wearing genuine authentic late C15th costumes. What we had was a group of very passionate Ricardians from all corners of the country, some members of the Society, some members of the Friends of RIII, some members of both, and some people who are fully Ricardian without paying subs to any society - some of whom might join the Society, and some of whom most definitely don't want to for a number of very valid reasons.
>>
>> As I posted yesterday, and have on previous occasions (though I know we won't agree on this) - it is the belief of several medieval historians who have studied Richard's life and times, that York would have been his likely mausoleum. The Society yesterday posted in the Leicester Press (but not anywhere else!!!) their response to the design brief, and included in their wishes for a table tomb, was the reason that Richard would have intended a table tomb for himself in a separate chantry. Well, a fabulously immense chantry is exactly what was being planned for at York, whilst he was King, so this is a pretty good indication that it *might well have been* his intended mausoleum. I don't understand the lack of joined-up thinking on this score.
>>
>> In York, the public were very supportive and interested and several hundred people signed a petition for the campaign to bring Richard back to York. The BBC and ITN press were also very keen, so much so that the ITN reporter and photographer stayed with the procession for well over its 2 hours of duration, and press coverage has been very positive.
>>
>> Your friend might have used the word "rag-bag" but I think (and many others have commented to me) that we looked not pathetic, but rather fabulous - there were an array of Ricardian flags, Ricardian t-shirts and boar badges, and white roses, and some "medieval-style" costumes, and lots of enthusiasm from people who felt genuinely part of a cause and a concern, one that centred (as many people who spoke to me, indicated) on "moral justice". Some people in other parts of the UK had heard about it on the morning news and had jumped in their cars to come and support it. One person had driven up from Devon that morning.
>>
>> The "so-called" family members - you ask 'are they Ricardians'? Ricardians in what sense? As paid up members of the Society? As people with a concern for the reputation of the man who is part of their ancestral lineage? And what would they need to do to "prove" themselves, somehow? And as for band-waggoning, there is no advantage here but for Richard to be re-interred in York. These people are committing themselves financially so that Richard can be re-interred in a place he might well have chosen for himself.
>>
>> We may disagree on the location and our reasoning for it, but I think it is unreasonable to disparage those who are campaigning for York.
>>
>> Col
>>
>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
>>> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
>>> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
>>> 'ragbag' was her word.
>>> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
>>> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
>>> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> --
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

colyngbourne wrote:

//snip//
"As I posted yesterday, and have on previous occasions (though I know we
won't agree on this) - it is the belief of several medieval historians who
have studied Richard's life and times, that York would have been his likely
mausoleum. The Society yesterday posted in the Leicester Press (but not
anywhere else!!!) their response to the design brief, and included in their
wishes for a table tomb, was the reason that Richard would have intended a
table tomb for himself in a separate chantry. Well, a fabulously immense
chantry is exactly what was being planned for at York, whilst he was King,
so this is a pretty good indication that it *might well have been* his
intended mausoleum. I don't understand the lack of joined-up thinking on
this score."
//snip//

Doug here:
I'm not certain just how definitive that chantry may be as an indicator of
Richard's intentions conerning his future (to him) burial. I mean, isn't
York the site of one of the two Archbishops in the country? I've also come
across references to the Archbishopric of York as being "palatine" and, from
the context, presumed that the Archbishop of York served in much the same
position as did Richard; ie, as the King's *political* agent in the northern
parts of England. And then there's the simple fact that, during the 15th
century, York was the kingdom's second city.
We know where Richard re-buried his father and brother - Fotheringay. We
also know that a large chantry was intended for York, but I don't know (does
anyone?) whether, or if, that chantry was sited in York because Richard
intended to be buried there, or because York was a city large enough to
support a chantry of that size. Siting a chantry consisting of 100 monks in
the country would require the establishment of an entire small town just to
provide for the monks, whereas siting the chantry in York, while expensive,
would mean the resources of a fairly large town/small city would be
available to provide for the members of the chantry.
Do you know if anyone has written anything on this particular chantry or,
for that matter, the construction/establishment of chantries in general?
Where and why (other than the obvious one of having masses said, of course)
they were built? And were chantries ever built by agents of the government,
as opposed to what we would consider "private" citizens? I mean, it's not as
if I don't already have a backlog of reading...
If I'm fortunate enough to ever return to the UK, I'll visit wherever
Richard is buried, all that matters is that he *finally* receives the honor
he deserves and his final resting place is reflective of that.
Doug

Another great post, Doug!


________________________________
Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:


I'm not certain just how definitive that chantry may be as an indicator of 

Richard's intentions conerning his future (to him) burial. I mean, isn't
York the site of one of the two Archbishops in the country? I've also come
across references to the Archbishopric of York as being "palatine" and, from
the context, presumed that the Archbishop of York served in much the same
position as did Richard; ie, as the King's *political* agent in the northern
parts of England. And then there's the simple fact that, during the 15th
century, York was the kingdom's second city.
We know where Richard re-buried his father and brother - Fotheringay. We
also know that a large chantry was intended for York, but I don't know (does
anyone?) whether, or if, that chantry was sited in York because Richard
intended to be buried there, or because York was a city large enough to
support a chantry of that size. Siting a chantry consisting of 100 monks in
the country would require the establishment of an entire small town just to
provide for the monks, whereas siting the chantry in York, while expensive,
would mean the resources of a fairly large town/small city would be
available to provide for the members of the chantry.
Do you know if anyone has written anything on this particular chantry or,
for that matter, the construction/establishment of chantries in general?
Where and why (other than the obvious one of having masses said, of course)
they were built? And were chantries ever built by agents of the government,
as opposed to what we would consider "private" citizens? I mean, it's not as
if I don't already have a backlog of reading...
If I'm fortunate enough to ever return to the UK, I'll visit wherever
Richard is buried, all that matters is that he *finally* receives the honor
he deserves and his final resting place is reflective of that.
Doug

Hi Doug,

one source (beyond Tony Pollard's writing on Richard and the north of England) which focuses on Richard and York in particular is Professor Barrie Dobson's "Church and Society in the Medieval North of England", at least some of which can be read via Google-books. Sadly, Professor Dobson died at the end of March this year. I'm sure other people here will provide other books as well - the Jonathan Hughes book - "RIII: Piety & Prayer in the North of England" is another possibility.

Col

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> colyngbourne wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "As I posted yesterday, and have on previous occasions (though I know we
> won't agree on this) - it is the belief of several medieval historians who
> have studied Richard's life and times, that York would have been his likely
> mausoleum. The Society yesterday posted in the Leicester Press (but not
> anywhere else!!!) their response to the design brief, and included in their
> wishes for a table tomb, was the reason that Richard would have intended a
> table tomb for himself in a separate chantry. Well, a fabulously immense
> chantry is exactly what was being planned for at York, whilst he was King,
> so this is a pretty good indication that it *might well have been* his
> intended mausoleum. I don't understand the lack of joined-up thinking on
> this score."
> //snip//
>
> Doug here:
> I'm not certain just how definitive that chantry may be as an indicator of
> Richard's intentions conerning his future (to him) burial. I mean, isn't
> York the site of one of the two Archbishops in the country? I've also come
> across references to the Archbishopric of York as being "palatine" and, from
> the context, presumed that the Archbishop of York served in much the same
> position as did Richard; ie, as the King's *political* agent in the northern
> parts of England. And then there's the simple fact that, during the 15th
> century, York was the kingdom's second city.
> We know where Richard re-buried his father and brother - Fotheringay. We
> also know that a large chantry was intended for York, but I don't know (does
> anyone?) whether, or if, that chantry was sited in York because Richard
> intended to be buried there, or because York was a city large enough to
> support a chantry of that size. Siting a chantry consisting of 100 monks in
> the country would require the establishment of an entire small town just to
> provide for the monks, whereas siting the chantry in York, while expensive,
> would mean the resources of a fairly large town/small city would be
> available to provide for the members of the chantry.
> Do you know if anyone has written anything on this particular chantry or,
> for that matter, the construction/establishment of chantries in general?
> Where and why (other than the obvious one of having masses said, of course)
> they were built? And were chantries ever built by agents of the government,
> as opposed to what we would consider "private" citizens? I mean, it's not as
> if I don't already have a backlog of reading...
> If I'm fortunate enough to ever return to the UK, I'll visit wherever
> Richard is buried, all that matters is that he *finally* receives the honor
> he deserves and his final resting place is reflective of that.
> Doug
>

Hi Doug    I've seen a couple of people comment here lately that Richard burying his father in Fotheringhay was probably/possibly indicative of his plans for himself. My one observation is that Richard took charge of his father's reburial at Edward's instigation - it being Edward's decision to move his father's and brother's remains back to the family seat - while he himself planned to be buried in Windsor.  So I don't think anything much can read into it beyond the fact that Richard was very happy to be entrusted with the honour of carrying this out on the family's behalf.
J.

--- On Tue, 7/5/13, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:


We know where Richard re-buried his father and brother - Fotheringay. .

Hi Doug, I can't answer you definitively, but in pursuing a certain person (guess who?) I found that there are lists of people who applied to the Pope - it seems you have to do that - for permission to erect anything from a private altar to a chantry. You can see them on British History Online. If you look at the Wills of people from this period, they are, from our modern perspective, totally obsessed with making provision for prayers for their dead loved ones, not just for themselves. The more splendid the chantry, the more you are doing to get yourself and your loved ones out of purgatory and into heaven - to put it crudely. So the founding of a chantry wouldn't necessarily mean you wanted to be buried there - but you did want yourself and your loved ones to be remembered there by as many masses into the foreseeable future as possible.
 
That's just what I've read, but of course some people like Richard Beauchamp did combine the two. 


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2013, 17:29
Subject: Re: Re: York

 


colyngbourne wrote:

//snip//
"As I posted yesterday, and have on previous occasions (though I know we
won't agree on this) - it is the belief of several medieval historians who
have studied Richard's life and times, that York would have been his likely
mausoleum. The Society yesterday posted in the Leicester Press (but not
anywhere else!!!) their response to the design brief, and included in their
wishes for a table tomb, was the reason that Richard would have intended a
table tomb for himself in a separate chantry. Well, a fabulously immense
chantry is exactly what was being planned for at York, whilst he was King,
so this is a pretty good indication that it *might well have been* his
intended mausoleum. I don't understand the lack of joined-up thinking on
this score."
//snip//

Doug here:
I'm not certain just how definitive that chantry may be as an indicator of
Richard's intentions conerning his future (to him) burial. I mean, isn't
York the site of one of the two Archbishops in the country? I've also come
across references to the Archbishopric of York as being "palatine" and, from
the context, presumed that the Archbishop of York served in much the same
position as did Richard; ie, as the King's *political* agent in the northern
parts of England. And then there's the simple fact that, during the 15th
century, York was the kingdom's second city.
We know where Richard re-buried his father and brother - Fotheringay. We
also know that a large chantry was intended for York, but I don't know (does
anyone?) whether, or if, that chantry was sited in York because Richard
intended to be buried there, or because York was a city large enough to
support a chantry of that size. Siting a chantry consisting of 100 monks in
the country would require the establishment of an entire small town just to
provide for the monks, whereas siting the chantry in York, while expensive,
would mean the resources of a fairly large town/small city would be
available to provide for the members of the chantry.
Do you know if anyone has written anything on this particular chantry or,
for that matter, the construction/establishment of chantries in general?
Where and why (other than the obvious one of having masses said, of course)
they were built? And were chantries ever built by agents of the government,
as opposed to what we would consider "private" citizens? I mean, it's not as
if I don't already have a backlog of reading...
If I'm fortunate enough to ever return to the UK, I'll visit wherever
Richard is buried, all that matters is that he *finally* receives the honor
he deserves and his final resting place is reflective of that.
Doug

It all looked very cheerful and colourful and good-natured to me on the pictures I have seen, and I was sorry not to have been able to be there. I still haven't watched the t.v. reports, but am about to!

--- On Tue, 7/5/13, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: York
To:
Date: Tuesday, 7 May, 2013, 20:26
















 









I'm sorry your friend thought the procession looked "rag-bag" - perhaps she would have wanted something more regimented or streamlined, or only people wearing genuine authentic late C15th costumes. What we had was a group of very passionate Ricardians from all corners of the country, some members of the Society, some members of the Friends of RIII, some members of both, and some people who are fully Ricardian without paying subs to any society - some of whom might join the Society, and some of whom most definitely don't want to for a number of very valid reasons.



As I posted yesterday, and have on previous occasions (though I know we won't agree on this) - it is the belief of several medieval historians who have studied Richard's life and times, that York would have been his likely mausoleum. The Society yesterday posted in the Leicester Press (but not anywhere else!!!) their response to the design brief, and included in their wishes for a table tomb, was the reason that Richard would have intended a table tomb for himself in a separate chantry. Well, a fabulously immense chantry is exactly what was being planned for at York, whilst he was King, so this is a pretty good indication that it *might well have been* his intended mausoleum. I don't understand the lack of joined-up thinking on this score.



In York, the public were very supportive and interested and several hundred people signed a petition for the campaign to bring Richard back to York. The BBC and ITN press were also very keen, so much so that the ITN reporter and photographer stayed with the procession for well over its 2 hours of duration, and press coverage has been very positive.



Your friend might have used the word "rag-bag" but I think (and many others have commented to me) that we looked not pathetic, but rather fabulous - there were an array of Ricardian flags, Ricardian t-shirts and boar badges, and white roses, and some "medieval-style" costumes, and lots of enthusiasm from people who felt genuinely part of a cause and a concern, one that centred (as many people who spoke to me, indicated) on "moral justice". Some people in other parts of the UK had heard about it on the morning news and had jumped in their cars to come and support it. One person had driven up from Devon that morning.



The "so-called" family members - you ask 'are they Ricardians'? Ricardians in what sense? As paid up members of the Society? As people with a concern for the reputation of the man who is part of their ancestral lineage? And what would they need to do to "prove" themselves, somehow? And as for band-waggoning, there is no advantage here but for Richard to be re-interred in York. These people are committing themselves financially so that Richard can be re-interred in a place he might well have chosen for himself.



We may disagree on the location and our reasoning for it, but I think it is unreasonable to disparage those who are campaigning for York.



Col



--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

>

> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag

> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters

> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".

> 'ragbag' was her word.

> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes

> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called

> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"

> Paul

>

> --

> Richard Liveth Yet!

>

colyngbourne wrote:

"one source (beyond Tony Pollard's writing on Richard and the north of
England) which focuses on Richard and York in particular is Professor Barrie
Dobson's "Church and Society in the Medieval North of England", at least
some of which can be read via Google-books. Sadly, Professor Dobson died at
the end of March this year. I'm sure other people here will provide other
books as well - the Jonathan Hughes book - "RIII: Piety & Prayer in the
North of England" is another possibility."

Thank you for the suggestions. The first one sounds more likely to be what
I'm looking for: a more generalized over-view covering places, things and
people (in that order).
Definitely going to have to start sorting reading recommendations by topic!
Doug
>
> Col
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> colyngbourne wrote:
>>
>> //snip//
>> "As I posted yesterday, and have on previous occasions (though I know we
>> won't agree on this) - it is the belief of several medieval historians
>> who
>> have studied Richard's life and times, that York would have been his
>> likely
>> mausoleum. The Society yesterday posted in the Leicester Press (but not
>> anywhere else!!!) their response to the design brief, and included in
>> their
>> wishes for a table tomb, was the reason that Richard would have intended
>> a
>> table tomb for himself in a separate chantry. Well, a fabulously immense
>> chantry is exactly what was being planned for at York, whilst he was
>> King,
>> so this is a pretty good indication that it *might well have been* his
>> intended mausoleum. I don't understand the lack of joined-up thinking on
>> this score."
>> //snip//
>>
>> Doug here:
>> I'm not certain just how definitive that chantry may be as an indicator
>> of
>> Richard's intentions conerning his future (to him) burial. I mean, isn't
>> York the site of one of the two Archbishops in the country? I've also
>> come
>> across references to the Archbishopric of York as being "palatine" and,
>> from
>> the context, presumed that the Archbishop of York served in much the same
>> position as did Richard; ie, as the King's *political* agent in the
>> northern
>> parts of England. And then there's the simple fact that, during the 15th
>> century, York was the kingdom's second city.
>> We know where Richard re-buried his father and brother - Fotheringay. We
>> also know that a large chantry was intended for York, but I don't know
>> (does
>> anyone?) whether, or if, that chantry was sited in York because Richard
>> intended to be buried there, or because York was a city large enough to
>> support a chantry of that size. Siting a chantry consisting of 100 monks
>> in
>> the country would require the establishment of an entire small town just
>> to
>> provide for the monks, whereas siting the chantry in York, while
>> expensive,
>> would mean the resources of a fairly large town/small city would be
>> available to provide for the members of the chantry.
>> Do you know if anyone has written anything on this particular chantry or,
>> for that matter, the construction/establishment of chantries in general?
>> Where and why (other than the obvious one of having masses said, of
>> course)
>> they were built? And were chantries ever built by agents of the
>> government,
>> as opposed to what we would consider "private" citizens? I mean, it's not
>> as
>> if I don't already have a backlog of reading...
>> If I'm fortunate enough to ever return to the UK, I'll visit wherever
>> Richard is buried, all that matters is that he *finally* receives the
>> honor
>> he deserves and his final resting place is reflective of that.
>> Doug
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Janet Ashton wrote:

"Hi Doug I've seen a couple of people comment here lately that Richard
burying his father in Fotheringhay was probably/possibly indicative of his
plans for himself. My one observation is that Richard took charge of his
father's reburial at Edward's instigation - it being Edward's decision to
move his father's and brother's remains back to the family seat - while he
himself planned to be buried in Windsor. So I don't think anything much can
read into it beyond the fact that Richard was very happy to be entrusted
with the honour of carrying this out on the family's behalf."

Darn it! And here I thought I was onto something!
I do wonder why Edward didn't move his father and brother to Windsor,
though. If Edward was planning that Windsor be the site for his *own*
burial, and was reburying his father and brother, why *not* rebury them at
Windsor?
I suppose *why* Edward didn't doesn't really matter, except maybe as a help
further understand.him.
Doug

Hilary Jones wrote:

"Hi Doug, I can't answer you definitively, but in pursuing a certain person
(guess who?) I found that there are lists of people who applied to the
Pope - it seems you have to do that - for permission to erect anything from
a private altar to a chantry. You can see them on British History Online. If
you look at the Wills of people from this period, they are, from our modern
perspective, totally obsessed with making provision for prayers for their
dead loved ones, not just for themselves. The more splendid the chantry, the
more you are doing to get yourself and your loved ones out of purgatory and
into heaven - to put it crudely. So the founding of a chantry wouldn't
necessarily mean you wanted to be buried there - but you did want yourself
and your loved ones to be remembered there by as many masses into the
foreseeable future as possible.
That's just what I've read, but of course some people like Richard Beauchamp
did combine the two."

Doug here:
Well, if Richard was providing a chantry for his extended family, that could
include his parents, siblings and their children, *besides* his own
immediate family, then 100 monks wouldn't necessarily be an un-expected
number. I'll have to dig around and see what other chantries had in the way
of personnel attached to them, I guess.
I already knew one had to get permission to establish a private altar or
chantry, but I didn't know about the papal involvement. Bet that ran up the
costs!
So, basically, we're back a square one. Richard may or may not have intended
York as his final resting place (before he became king), but the
establishment of a chantry at York, by itself, isn't definitive.
Doug
(Whose sympathy for your "Hunting of the Stillington" is growing by leaps
and bounds!)

He crops up in the strangest places - I think I've escaped and he peeps round the corner!!
 
Like you in your other post I too had wondered if the Yorks were to move from Fotheringhay to Windsor but perhaps Cis as archive custodian had other thoughts?  


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2013, 19:18
Subject: Re: Re: York

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"Hi Doug, I can't answer you definitively, but in pursuing a certain person
(guess who?) I found that there are lists of people who applied to the
Pope - it seems you have to do that - for permission to erect anything from
a private altar to a chantry. You can see them on British History Online. If
you look at the Wills of people from this period, they are, from our modern
perspective, totally obsessed with making provision for prayers for their
dead loved ones, not just for themselves. The more splendid the chantry, the
more you are doing to get yourself and your loved ones out of purgatory and
into heaven - to put it crudely. So the founding of a chantry wouldn't
necessarily mean you wanted to be buried there - but you did want yourself
and your loved ones to be remembered there by as many masses into the
foreseeable future as possible.
That's just what I've read, but of course some people like Richard Beauchamp
did combine the two."

Doug here:
Well, if Richard was providing a chantry for his extended family, that could
include his parents, siblings and their children, *besides* his own
immediate family, then 100 monks wouldn't necessarily be an un-expected
number. I'll have to dig around and see what other chantries had in the way
of personnel attached to them, I guess.
I already knew one had to get permission to establish a private altar or
chantry, but I didn't know about the papal involvement. Bet that ran up the
costs!
So, basically, we're back a square one. Richard may or may not have intended
York as his final resting place (before he became king), but the
establishment of a chantry at York, by itself, isn't definitive.
Doug
(Whose sympathy for your "Hunting of the Stillington" is growing by leaps
and bounds!)

With regards to the personnel of the ones Richard was connected to - he planned one with 6 priests at Middleham, one with 6 priests at St Mary, All-Hallows (by the Tower of London), one with 12 priests at Barnard Castle, and the one in York with 100 priests. The one in Barnard Castle was described by Prof Dobson as "the most ambitious late medieval chantry establishment in the palatinate of Durham" - and that was 'only' 12 priests. The one for 100 in York is immense in comparison to anything else planned, I suspect.

If you find anything interesting about other people's chantries and monies spent etc, it would be great to know.

Col

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "Hi Doug, I can't answer you definitively, but in pursuing a certain person
> (guess who?) I found that there are lists of people who applied to the
> Pope - it seems you have to do that - for permission to erect anything from
> a private altar to a chantry. You can see them on British History Online. If
> you look at the Wills of people from this period, they are, from our modern
> perspective, totally obsessed with making provision for prayers for their
> dead loved ones, not just for themselves. The more splendid the chantry, the
> more you are doing to get yourself and your loved ones out of purgatory and
> into heaven - to put it crudely. So the founding of a chantry wouldn't
> necessarily mean you wanted to be buried there - but you did want yourself
> and your loved ones to be remembered there by as many masses into the
> foreseeable future as possible.
> That's just what I've read, but of course some people like Richard Beauchamp
> did combine the two."
>
> Doug here:
> Well, if Richard was providing a chantry for his extended family, that could
> include his parents, siblings and their children, *besides* his own
> immediate family, then 100 monks wouldn't necessarily be an un-expected
> number. I'll have to dig around and see what other chantries had in the way
> of personnel attached to them, I guess.
> I already knew one had to get permission to establish a private altar or
> chantry, but I didn't know about the papal involvement. Bet that ran up the
> costs!
> So, basically, we're back a square one. Richard may or may not have intended
> York as his final resting place (before he became king), but the
> establishment of a chantry at York, by itself, isn't definitive.
> Doug
> (Whose sympathy for your "Hunting of the Stillington" is growing by leaps
> and bounds!)
>

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: York

> The one for 100 in York is immense in comparison to anything else
> planned, I suspect.

That might have soemthing to do with the fact that his father's and
brother's heads were stuck on spikes there: the chantry might have been to
say mass for them.

Part of Edward's decision was to demonstrate the legitimacy and supremacy of the Yorkist line that had triumphed over their rivals. The progress of the procession and the manner in which it was carried out was a propaganda exercise. It was a showy demonstration with life-size effigies, which have not survived unfortunately. True, Richard took charge of the proceedings, Edward assigning him the job. The interesting point is the timing and we could ask why it did not happen sooner, during Edward's first reign when surely that would have been the most appropriate time to ensure that York as the head of the family and Edmund, received an appropriate and fitting reburial and lasting memorial. It would have cemented the permanence of Edward's right to rule, solidified his position, and perhaps prevented the events of 1470 - 1471 when he was removed by Warwick and forced to fight for his crown again. He could stir himself when necessary and it is true that he learnt from his mistakes and did not repeat them during his second reign but the decision to rebury his father and brother was belated and could appear as primarily a cynical propaganda exercise foisted onto Richard who undertook with his usual diligence.
Elaine





--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Janet Ashton wrote:
>
> "Hi Doug I've seen a couple of people comment here lately that Richard
> burying his father in Fotheringhay was probably/possibly indicative of his
> plans for himself. My one observation is that Richard took charge of his
> father's reburial at Edward's instigation - it being Edward's decision to
> move his father's and brother's remains back to the family seat - while he
> himself planned to be buried in Windsor. So I don't think anything much can
> read into it beyond the fact that Richard was very happy to be entrusted
> with the honour of carrying this out on the family's behalf."
>
> Darn it! And here I thought I was onto something!
> I do wonder why Edward didn't move his father and brother to Windsor,
> though. If Edward was planning that Windsor be the site for his *own*
> burial, and was reburying his father and brother, why *not* rebury them at
> Windsor?
> I suppose *why* Edward didn't doesn't really matter, except maybe as a help
> further understand.him.
> Doug
>

If it had similar aims as the Collegiate foundation at Middleham, it would have been for prayers for himself, his wife and son, for his surviving siblings, and his mother. Masses at Middleham were also to be said for the soul of his father and his deceased brothers and sisters.

It was of course the Lancastrians who made sure his father and brother's heads were put on spikes there, not citizens of York.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: colyngbourne
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 6:44 PM
> Subject: Re: York
>
> > The one for 100 in York is immense in comparison to anything else
> > planned, I suspect.
>
> That might have soemthing to do with the fact that his father's and
> brother's heads were stuck on spikes there: the chantry might have been to
> say mass for them.
>

Hello, I too was there and know some of the people an excellent bunch of people and certainly not rag bag in my opinion, it was a good day and lots of people interested in what was being done regarding Richard and York.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> One's man rubbish is another's viewpoint. Please be careful about the
> language you use when criticising other members ideas.
> And if you read what I posted originally I said friend of mine told me,
> so I was simply passing along what she said. Oh and she is a northerner,
> and a Ricardian who spends as much time in York as she can.
> Paul
>
> On 08/05/2013 10:34, christineholmes651@... wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Colyngbourne, glad someone understands about York and this rubbish about people jumping on a band wagon, these people care about Richard as do I and I will support them all the way to Europe if needed.
> > We may fail but at least we will have fought for Richard and not betrayed him again and yes I do feel very strongly about Richard have no doubt about that.
> > Christine
> > Loyaulte me Lie.
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >> I'm sorry your friend thought the procession looked "rag-bag" - perhaps she would have wanted something more regimented or streamlined, or only people wearing genuine authentic late C15th costumes. What we had was a group of very passionate Ricardians from all corners of the country, some members of the Society, some members of the Friends of RIII, some members of both, and some people who are fully Ricardian without paying subs to any society - some of whom might join the Society, and some of whom most definitely don't want to for a number of very valid reasons.
> >>
> >> As I posted yesterday, and have on previous occasions (though I know we won't agree on this) - it is the belief of several medieval historians who have studied Richard's life and times, that York would have been his likely mausoleum. The Society yesterday posted in the Leicester Press (but not anywhere else!!!) their response to the design brief, and included in their wishes for a table tomb, was the reason that Richard would have intended a table tomb for himself in a separate chantry. Well, a fabulously immense chantry is exactly what was being planned for at York, whilst he was King, so this is a pretty good indication that it *might well have been* his intended mausoleum. I don't understand the lack of joined-up thinking on this score.
> >>
> >> In York, the public were very supportive and interested and several hundred people signed a petition for the campaign to bring Richard back to York. The BBC and ITN press were also very keen, so much so that the ITN reporter and photographer stayed with the procession for well over its 2 hours of duration, and press coverage has been very positive.
> >>
> >> Your friend might have used the word "rag-bag" but I think (and many others have commented to me) that we looked not pathetic, but rather fabulous - there were an array of Ricardian flags, Ricardian t-shirts and boar badges, and white roses, and some "medieval-style" costumes, and lots of enthusiasm from people who felt genuinely part of a cause and a concern, one that centred (as many people who spoke to me, indicated) on "moral justice". Some people in other parts of the UK had heard about it on the morning news and had jumped in their cars to come and support it. One person had driven up from Devon that morning.
> >>
> >> The "so-called" family members - you ask 'are they Ricardians'? Ricardians in what sense? As paid up members of the Society? As people with a concern for the reputation of the man who is part of their ancestral lineage? And what would they need to do to "prove" themselves, somehow? And as for band-waggoning, there is no advantage here but for Richard to be re-interred in York. These people are committing themselves financially so that Richard can be re-interred in a place he might well have chosen for himself.
> >>
> >> We may disagree on the location and our reasoning for it, but I think it is unreasonable to disparage those who are campaigning for York.
> >>
> >> Col
> >>
> >> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>> A friend of mine was in York this weekend and says she saw this ragbag
> >>> group of people waving banners that turned out to be the protesters
> >>> demanding Richard be buried in York "as he wanted".
> >>> 'ragbag' was her word.
> >>> Nothing to prove their claim of course, and only a protest that makes
> >>> Ricardians look rather pathetic, though not many of these self-called
> >>> "family members" are actually Ricardians, more "jump on band wagoners!"
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

York did send troops to Bosworth but they didn't arrive in time. Possibly making their comment later even more emotional with the feeling they'd let their king down.
Paul


Envoyé de mon iPad