Peer reviewed article of findings from UoL published in Antiquity 87

Hi
I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
Elaine

Thanks Elaine....looks interesting although as you say its a very poor show not to mention JA-H and I presume Phillipa is not mentioned either? Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
> I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
> http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
> It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
> Elaine
>

She is mentioned as the 'initiator' of the public archaeology project, (520) and as a member of the Richard III Society. It also refers to a desk based project that was commissioned in 2011. The society is referred to throughout as non-specialist partners and its final paragraph is patronising and condescending. See below.

"It is clear ... that to some extent academic research questions coincide with the questions of our non-specialist partners and the wider public, but they re not identical. However, that does not mean that we as archaeologists should dismiss the questions of wider audiences as not worth asking. We have demonstrated that a project like Grey Friars, where academics, local authorities and amateur enthusiasts work together, can produce answers and benefits for all".


Elaine

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Elaine....looks interesting although as you say its a very poor show not to mention JA-H and I presume Phillipa is not mentioned either? Eileen
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> > I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
> > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
> > It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
> > Elaine
> >
>

I see.......that is the way the wind is blowing...hmmm,..patronising plonkers....Still worth a read.....Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> She is mentioned as the 'initiator' of the public archaeology project, (520) and as a member of the Richard III Society. It also refers to a desk based project that was commissioned in 2011. The society is referred to throughout as non-specialist partners and its final paragraph is patronising and condescending. See below.
>
> "It is clear ... that to some extent academic research questions coincide with the questions of our non-specialist partners and the wider public, but they re not identical. However, that does not mean that we as archaeologists should dismiss the questions of wider audiences as not worth asking. We have demonstrated that a project like Grey Friars, where academics, local authorities and amateur enthusiasts work together, can produce answers and benefits for all".
>
>
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Elaine....looks interesting although as you say its a very poor show not to mention JA-H and I presume Phillipa is not mentioned either? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
> > > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
> > > It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> >
>

How patronising. "Non specialist partners and amateur enthusiasts" how dare they! JAH has done more research on the WOTR than all of them put together and if he hadn't done his research on the site of the Greyfriars they would still be taking John Speede's site of the the Black Friars for the site of the Greyfriars. That's how much research they are capable of. Leicester Council would not be sitting on their biggest money making venture since goodness knows when if Philippa had not persuaded them to get involved in this. Then what about all the research and the books and articles written by Peter Hammond, Anne Sutton , Livia Visser Fuchs, Marie Barnfield, Wendy Moorhen, Lorraine Attreed long before we ever heard of the Archaeology Dept at the University of Leicester. I am sorry to rant but this is so unfair, but then we should be used to it by now as there has been a search for justice for Richard for hundreds of years.

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> She is mentioned as the 'initiator' of the public archaeology project, (520) and as a member of the Richard III Society. It also refers to a desk based project that was commissioned in 2011. The society is referred to throughout as non-specialist partners and its final paragraph is patronising and condescending. See below.
>
> "It is clear ... that to some extent academic research questions coincide with the questions of our non-specialist partners and the wider public, but they re not identical. However, that does not mean that we as archaeologists should dismiss the questions of wider audiences as not worth asking. We have demonstrated that a project like Grey Friars, where academics, local authorities and amateur enthusiasts work together, can produce answers and benefits for all".
>
>
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Elaine....looks interesting although as you say its a very poor show not to mention JA-H and I presume Phillipa is not mentioned either? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
> > > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
> > > It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> >
>

Yes it is VERY unfair, and I think some academicians might be fearful of the "righteous" places in History Departments!

On Jun 9, 2013, at 5:16 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:



How patronising. "Non specialist partners and amateur enthusiasts" how dare they! JAH has done more research on the WOTR than all of them put together and if he hadn't done his research on the site of the Greyfriars they would still be taking John Speede's site of the the Black Friars for the site of the Greyfriars. That's how much research they are capable of. Leicester Council would not be sitting on their biggest money making venture since goodness knows when if Philippa had not persuaded them to get involved in this. Then what about all the research and the books and articles written by Peter Hammond, Anne Sutton , Livia Visser Fuchs, Marie Barnfield, Wendy Moorhen, Lorraine Attreed long before we ever heard of the Archaeology Dept at the University of Leicester. I am sorry to rant but this is so unfair, but then we should be used to it by now as there has been a search for justice for Richard for hundreds of years.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> She is mentioned as the 'initiator' of the public archaeology project, (520) and as a member of the Richard III Society. It also refers to a desk based project that was commissioned in 2011. The society is referred to throughout as non-specialist partners and its final paragraph is patronising and condescending. See below.
>
> "It is clear ... that to some extent academic research questions coincide with the questions of our non-specialist partners and the wider public, but they re not identical. However, that does not mean that we as archaeologists should dismiss the questions of wider audiences as not worth asking. We have demonstrated that a project like Grey Friars, where academics, local authorities and amateur enthusiasts work together, can produce answers and benefits for all".
>
>
> Elaine
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Elaine....looks interesting although as you say its a very poor show not to mention JA-H and I presume Phillipa is not mentioned either? Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
> > > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
> > > It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> >
>

Hello All, seems to me that the Society EC has let everyone walk all over them, correct me if I am wrong please.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> She is mentioned as the 'initiator' of the public archaeology project, (520) and as a member of the Richard III Society. It also refers to a desk based project that was commissioned in 2011. The society is referred to throughout as non-specialist partners and its final paragraph is patronising and condescending. See below.
>
> "It is clear ... that to some extent academic research questions coincide with the questions of our non-specialist partners and the wider public, but they re not identical. However, that does not mean that we as archaeologists should dismiss the questions of wider audiences as not worth asking. We have demonstrated that a project like Grey Friars, where academics, local authorities and amateur enthusiasts work together, can produce answers and benefits for all".
>
>
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Elaine....looks interesting although as you say its a very poor show not to mention JA-H and I presume Phillipa is not mentioned either? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
> > > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
> > > It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> >
>

Hi Eileen and All, I read it a short while ago and was disgusted that neither John nor Phillipa was mentioned, it's as if they did not exist.
It seems to me that the University and some of the people of Leicester want to exclude any reference to anyone else other than themselves in the recovery of Richard, look at what's on the London buses, "We found Richard III what will you find?" They would not have found anything if it hadn't been for John, Phillipa and people who put funding in for the dig to continue.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Elaine....looks interesting although as you say its a very poor show not to mention JA-H and I presume Phillipa is not mentioned either? Eileen
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> > I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
> > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
> > It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
> > Elaine
> >
>

I'm not normally a red tape person but I think this does demonstrate where it's necessary to have had some sort of contract. I know lawyers cost money, but this could have indirectly cost the Society and JAH (in book sales) money they could have really done with. It makes me cross too. We have people like PG giving insights on historical characters and nobody calls them 'amateurs'.



________________________________
From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 11:24
Subject: Re: Peer reviewed article of findings from UoL published in Antiquity 87

 

Hello All, seems to me that the Society EC has let everyone walk all over them, correct me if I am wrong please.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> She is mentioned as the 'initiator' of the public archaeology project, (520) and as a member of the Richard III Society. It also refers to a desk based project that was commissioned in 2011. The society is referred to throughout as non-specialist partners and its final paragraph is patronising and condescending. See below.
>
> "It is clear ... that to some extent academic research questions coincide with the questions of our non-specialist partners and the wider public, but they re not identical. However, that does not mean that we as archaeologists should dismiss the questions of wider audiences as not worth asking. We have demonstrated that a project like Grey Friars, where academics, local authorities and amateur enthusiasts work together, can produce answers and benefits for all".
>
>
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Elaine....looks interesting although as you say its a very poor show not to mention JA-H and I presume Phillipa is not mentioned either? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
> > > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
> > > It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> >
>

Phillipa Langley is mentioned - as I posted when this paper was first published.  J A-H isn't, but you can assume that they considered referencing the RIII Society covered the wider credits.  I really don't find this in the least patronising or disrespectful - just an indicator that the University's academic agenda, unsurprisingly, differs in some respects from the agenda of those on this list.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 11:35
Subject: Re: Peer reviewed article of findings from UoL published in Antiquity 87



 
Hi Eileen and All, I read it a short while ago and was disgusted that neither John nor Phillipa was mentioned, it's as if they did not exist.
It seems to me that the University and some of the people of Leicester want to exclude any reference to anyone else other than themselves in the recovery of Richard, look at what's on the London buses, "We found Richard III what will you find?" They would not have found anything if it hadn't been for John, Phillipa and people who put funding in for the dig to continue.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Elaine....looks interesting although as you say its a very poor show not to mention JA-H and I presume Phillipa is not mentioned either? Eileen
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> > I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
> > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
> > It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
> > Elaine
> >
>

We will have to disagree then Jonathan,:) sorry.
Christine

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Phillipa Langley is mentioned - as I posted when this paper was first published.  J A-H isn't, but you can assume that they considered referencing the RIII Society covered the wider credits.  I really don't find this in the least patronising or disrespectful - just an indicator that the University's academic agenda, unsurprisingly, differs in some respects from the agenda of those on this list.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 11:35
> Subject: Re: Peer reviewed article of findings from UoL published in Antiquity 87
>
>
>
>  
> Hi Eileen and All, I read it a short while ago and was disgusted that neither John nor Phillipa was mentioned, it's as if they did not exist.
> It seems to me that the University and some of the people of Leicester want to exclude any reference to anyone else other than themselves in the recovery of Richard, look at what's on the London buses, "We found Richard III what will you find?" They would not have found anything if it hadn't been for John, Phillipa and people who put funding in for the dig to continue.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Elaine....looks interesting although as you say its a very poor show not to mention JA-H and I presume Phillipa is not mentioned either? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
> > > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
> > > It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Nothing wrong with that - life would be boring if we all agreed on everything like good little Alison Weirs, for whom there are no doubts, no shades of grey and no differences of opinion.  :-)

Jonathan



________________________________
From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 13:01
Subject: Re: Peer reviewed article of findings from UoL published in Antiquity 87



 
We will have to disagree then Jonathan,:) sorry.
Christine

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Phillipa Langley is mentioned - as I posted when this paper was first published.  J A-H isn't, but you can assume that they considered referencing the RIII Society covered the wider credits.  I really don't find this in the least patronising or disrespectful - just an indicator that the University's academic agenda, unsurprisingly, differs in some respects from the agenda of those on this list.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 11:35
> Subject: Re: Peer reviewed article of findings from UoL published in Antiquity 87
>
>
>
>  
> Hi Eileen and All, I read it a short while ago and was disgusted that neither John nor Phillipa was mentioned, it's as if they did not exist.
> It seems to me that the University and some of the people of Leicester want to exclude any reference to anyone else other than themselves in the recovery of Richard, look at what's on the London buses, "We found Richard III what will you find?" They would not have found anything if it hadn't been for John, Phillipa and people who put funding in for the dig to continue.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Elaine....looks interesting although as you say its a very poor show not to mention JA-H and I presume Phillipa is not mentioned either? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
> > > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
> > > It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well said Jonathan.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Nothing wrong with that - life would be boring if we all agreed on everything like good little Alison Weirs, for whom there are no doubts, no shades of grey and no differences of opinion.  :-)
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 13:01
> Subject: Re: Peer reviewed article of findings from UoL published in Antiquity 87
>
>
>
>  
> We will have to disagree then Jonathan,:) sorry.
> Christine
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > Phillipa Langley is mentioned - as I posted when this paper was first published.  J A-H isn't, but you can assume that they considered referencing the RIII Society covered the wider credits.  I really don't find this in the least patronising or disrespectful - just an indicator that the University's academic agenda, unsurprisingly, differs in some respects from the agenda of those on this list.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "christineholmes651@" <christineholmes651@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 11:35
> > Subject: Re: Peer reviewed article of findings from UoL published in Antiquity 87
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> > Hi Eileen and All, I read it a short while ago and was disgusted that neither John nor Phillipa was mentioned, it's as if they did not exist.
> > It seems to me that the University and some of the people of Leicester want to exclude any reference to anyone else other than themselves in the recovery of Richard, look at what's on the London buses, "We found Richard III what will you find?" They would not have found anything if it hadn't been for John, Phillipa and people who put funding in for the dig to continue.
> > Christine
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Elaine....looks interesting although as you say its a very poor show not to mention JA-H and I presume Phillipa is not mentioned either? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > > I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
> > > > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
> > > > It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

If it wasn't for JAH they wouldn't even have been digging in the right place so I think a mention isn't too much to ask and frankly the unversity's agenda is indeed different - it's all about them.
 
 

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 12:41
Subject: Re: Re: Peer reviewed article of findings from UoL published in Antiquity 87

 
Phillipa Langley is mentioned - as I posted when this paper was first published.  J A-H isn't, but you can assume that they considered referencing the RIII Society covered the wider credits.  I really don't find this in the least patronising or disrespectful - just an indicator that the University's academic agenda, unsurprisingly, differs in some respects from the agenda of those on this list.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: "mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com" <mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 11:35
Subject: Re: Peer reviewed article of findings from UoL published in Antiquity 87


 
Hi Eileen and All, I read it a short while ago and was disgusted that neither John nor Phillipa was mentioned, it's as if they did not exist.
It seems to me that the University and some of the people of Leicester want to exclude any reference to anyone else other than themselves in the recovery of Richard, look at what's on the London buses, "We found Richard III what will you find?" They would not have found anything if it hadn't been for John, Phillipa and people who put funding in for the dig to continue.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Elaine....looks interesting although as you say its a very poor show not to mention JA-H and I presume Phillipa is not mentioned either? Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> > I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
> > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
> > It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
> > Elaine
> >
>




jONATHAN

We already know what Leicester University's agenda is regarding "digging in the right place." They pulled one of their professors out of retirement, and that professor stated he'd pointed out years before where they were to dig.

Yes, it is all about them. It's not about the truth -- it's never about the truth. It's about power and what can be done with that power.

Not much has changed in the world since Richard died.

~Weds


--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> If it wasn't for JAH they wouldn't even have been digging in the right place so I think a mention isn't too much to ask and frankly the unversity's agenda is indeed different - it's all about them.
>  
>  
>
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 12:41
> Subject: Re: Re: Peer reviewed article of findings from UoL published in Antiquity 87
>
>  
> Phillipa Langley is mentioned - as I posted when this paper was first published.  J A-H isn't, but you can assume that they considered referencing the RIII Society covered the wider credits.  I really don't find this in the least patronising or disrespectful - just an indicator that the University's academic agenda, unsurprisingly, differs in some respects from the agenda of those on this list.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: "mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com" <mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 11:35
> Subject: Re: Peer reviewed article of findings from UoL published in Antiquity 87
>
>
>  
> Hi Eileen and All, I read it a short while ago and was disgusted that neither John nor Phillipa was mentioned, it's as if they did not exist.
> It seems to me that the University and some of the people of Leicester want to exclude any reference to anyone else other than themselves in the recovery of Richard, look at what's on the London buses, "We found Richard III what will you find?" They would not have found anything if it hadn't been for John, Phillipa and people who put funding in for the dig to continue.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Elaine....looks interesting although as you say its a very poor show not to mention JA-H and I presume Phillipa is not mentioned either? Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > I have tried to upload this article but it is too large and have asked Neil if he can help. But you can access it yourself at
> > > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm. It is free online.
> > > It presents the archaeological and basic skeletal evidence only. I have read it but will wait till others have before commenting as there are points I wish to raise. One omission is no acknowledgement of JAH at all though!.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> >
>
>
> jONATHAN
>

Agree completely with your last statement (not much has changed in the
world since Richard died) & I can't help wondering, if on some cosmic level
that's the "reason" for his "re-appearance" now. Although perhaps, I'm
just reading into the situation, seeking to create my own meaning.

A J


On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:40 PM, wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> We already know what Leicester University's agenda is regarding "digging
> in the right place." They pulled one of their professors out of retirement,
> and that professor stated he'd pointed out years before where they were to
> dig.
>
> Yes, it is all about them. It's not about the truth -- it's never about
> the truth. It's about power and what can be done with that power.
>
> Not much has changed in the world since Richard died.
>
> ~Weds
>


> <snip>
>
>